← All Phrases

“R&D expenditure”

Business ExpensesSection 35(2AB)Section 35(2AB)252 judgments

The decision most relied on for R&D expenditure is CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd. (326 ITR 251), cited in 196 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on R&D expenditure

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.
335 ITR 117 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable for R&D expenditure incurred even if the approval from the DSIR is granted in a subsequent assessment year, provided the application for approval was made in time. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the approval is based on verification of details submitted.

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
397 ITR 681 · 2017 · High Court
84
citing judgments

For claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), the existence of recognition for a Research and Development (R&D) Centre is relevant, not necessarily the date of approval or recognition.

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. v. CIT
350 ITR 366 · 2013 · High Court
68
citing judgments

Expenses, including scientific research or head office expenses, cannot be allocated to units eligible for deductions under sections 80IB or 80IC unless there is a clear nexus between the expenditure and the specific eligible unit for computing the deduction.

Cummins India Ltd. v. DCIT
96 Taxmann.com 576 · 2018 · ITAT
67
citing judgments

The weighted deduction for scientific research expenditure under Section 35(2AB) is allowable, clarifying that the requirement for the prescribed authority to approve or quantify the expenditure from year to year became effective only from April 1, 2016, through amendments to Rule 6(7A)(b).

CIT v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
31 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court
65
citing judgments

Section 35(2AB), an incentive provision, allows weighted deduction for expenditure 'on in-house research or development facility' even if related activities like clinical trials are conducted externally, provided they are for the in-house research. This requires a liberal interpretation of the provision.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT
162 ITD 484 · 2017 · ITAT
47
citing judgments

The approval of an in-house R&D centre through Form 3CM is the primary document for claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The case clarifies the significance of this form and the role of the prescribed authority (DSIR) in the approval process.

Judgments citing R&D expenditure

Manatec Electronics Private Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/CHNY/2025[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.83/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Manatec Electronics Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 19A, Abinav Kailash, Corporate Ward 4(1), Velachery Road, Little Mount, Chennai. Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aafcm1685D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. & Ms. Ranjini, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. As Per Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

year under consideration, the amount quantified for the claim of 5 I.T.A. No.83/Chny/25 deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act for R&D expenditure is only to an extent of ₹.3,45,62,000/- as certified by the Joint Secretary for and on behalf of the Secretary, DSIR vide

DCIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3935/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Shri Tarang Mehta &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

prescribed authority for the purposes of Section 35(2AB) of the Act, income from contract/sponsored research should be reduced from the gross R&D expenditure for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. It was found that the assessee had incurred part of the expenditure for providing R

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

NFAC ought to have appreciated that the CIT(A)-NFAC cannot disallow deduction claimed by the Appellant in respect of weighted deduction on R&D expenditure as approved by DSIR. Once such expenditure has been quantified by DSIR, then AO / CIT(A) - NFAC does not have any powers to intervene ... that DSIR being the prescribed authority in the instant case, had issued the report in Form No. 3CL - Annexure - M certifying the total R&D expenditure (excluding land and buildings) as prescribed under Section 35(2AB) for a sum of Rs. 4,601.9 lakhs as against the claim

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT
Section 14ASection 92C

NFAC ought to have appreciated that the CIT(A)-NFAC cannot disallow deduction claimed by the Appellant in respect of weighted deduction on R&D expenditure as approved by DSIR. Once such expenditure has been quantified by DSIR, then AO / CIT(A) - NFAC does not have any powers to intervene ... that DSIR being the prescribed authority in the instant case, had issued the report in Form No. 3CL - Annexure M certifying the total R&D expenditure (excluding land and buildings) as prescribed under Section 35(2AB) for a sum of Rs.4,601.9 lakhs as against the claim of Rs.5

Ssnc Fintech Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 916/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Ketan K. VedFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 920

crore and Rs. 3 crore respectively for the year ended March 31, 2013. On a standalone basis, the total R&D expenditure, including eligible R&D expenditure 28 ITA.No.916/Hyd./2024 discussed above for fiscal years 2014 and 2013 is as follows: 2014 2013 Revenue expenditure 873 907 Capital expenditure ... Total 873 913 R&D expenditure / total revenue 2.0% 2.5% %, (e) It is also apparent from page No.326 of PB-II that the company has incurred huge selling and marketing expenses of Rs. 2,390 Crs. Extraction from Page 326 of PB-II III Results of operations The function-wise

Tata Cummins Private Limited, Pune vs. The DCIT Circle-1-Jamshedpur and the Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 430/RAN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

vest with Cummins Inc. Merely on the basis of this clause mentioned in the agreement, your goodself has questioned as to why the R&D expenditure incurred by the Assessee on research activities should not be remunerated by the AE and accordingly why no income be calculated for R&D ... also help Indian army with armoured trucks and Missile carriers. Facts for the year under consideration 9.8 The Company has incurred in house R&D expenditure of INR 10,90,71,239/- Lakhs. The said R&D expenses incurred by the Assessee are in the nature of testing expenses, salaries

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result. appeal of the Assessee is partly

ITA 663/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 92C

research amounting to Rs.19,10,91,910/- under section 35(2AB)of the Act. 34. The appellant company has claimed weighted deduction on R & D expenditure under section 35(2AB) at Rs.398,36,53,820/-. As per Form-3CL issued by the DSIR, the Competent Authority has certified R

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 281/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of in-house R&D expenditure incurred at the corporate level, without allocating any part of such expenses to its tax-exempt units. The Assessing Officer was of the view that failure to allocate ... disallowance. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had maintained separate books of account for each eligible unit, and that the in-house R&D expenditure in question was incurred at a centralized R&D facility, which was duly approved by the DSIR and was not related

Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37Section 92C

Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect of in-house R&D expenditure incurred at the corporate level, without allocating any part of such expenses to its tax-exempt units. The Assessing Officer was of the view that failure to allocate ... disallowance. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had maintained separate books of account for each eligible unit, and that the in-house R&D expenditure in question was incurred at a centralized R&D facility, which was duly approved by the DSIR and was not related

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax 8(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ms. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

original assessment order. Thus, essentially the common issue in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IC which has been disallowed pertains to interest and R&D expenditure allocated to Baddi unit. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., AYs 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09 4. In so far as it relates to interest ... Assessing Officer towards Baddi unit which goes to reduce the claim of assessee u/s. 80IC. 5. In so far as it relates to R&D expenditure allocation to the Baddi unit, all through out claim of the assessee has been that expenditure towards R&D incurred has no correlation

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2588/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

original assessment order. Thus, essentially the common issue in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IC which has been disallowed pertains to interest and R&D expenditure allocated to Baddi unit. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., AYs 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09 4. In so far as it relates to interest ... Assessing Officer towards Baddi unit which goes to reduce the claim of assessee u/s. 80IC. 5. In so far as it relates to R&D expenditure allocation to the Baddi unit, all through out claim of the assessee has been that expenditure towards R&D incurred has no correlation

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2584/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

original assessment order. Thus, essentially the common issue in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IC which has been disallowed pertains to interest and R&D expenditure allocated to Baddi unit. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., AYs 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09 4. In so far as it relates to interest ... Assessing Officer towards Baddi unit which goes to reduce the claim of assessee u/s. 80IC. 5. In so far as it relates to R&D expenditure allocation to the Baddi unit, all through out claim of the assessee has been that expenditure towards R&D incurred has no correlation

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2582/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

original assessment order. Thus, essentially the common issue in respect of claim of deduction u/s.80IC which has been disallowed pertains to interest and R&D expenditure allocated to Baddi unit. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., AYs 2010-11, 2009-10 and 2008-09 4. In so far as it relates to interest ... Assessing Officer towards Baddi unit which goes to reduce the claim of assessee u/s. 80IC. 5. In so far as it relates to R&D expenditure allocation to the Baddi unit, all through out claim of the assessee has been that expenditure towards R&D incurred has no correlation

Rrb Energy Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4104/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 253(5)Section 35

date of approval accorded by the Prescribed Authority. In the case on hand Form No. 3CL has clearly quantified and certified the R&D expenditure eligible for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB). The AO is directed to allow weighted deduction with reference to Rs.633.53 lacs only as against expenditure

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fis Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

ITA 2387/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

value could not be the reason for exclusion of this comparable as the assessee had failed to demonstrate how the brand name, high R&D expenditure had impacted the margins of Infosys Tech. The Ld. CIT-DR, emphasizing the Rule 10(B)(3) of Income-tax Rules, argued that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Fis Global Business Solution India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and both Cos are allowed as above

ITA 5939/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRISUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

value could not be the reason for exclusion of this comparable as the assessee had failed to demonstrate how the brand name, high R&D expenditure had impacted the margins of Infosys Tech. The Ld. CIT-DR, emphasizing the Rule 10(B)(3) of Income-tax Rules, argued that

Here Solutions India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5918/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92D

relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that data digitalisation is the primary activity of this company and no R&D expenditure was incurred. 17. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of relevant extracts

Open Text Technologies India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

ITA 2387/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 92B

other hand, learned DR has relied upon the order of the DRP and submitted that the objections raised by the assessee regarding R & D expenditure and brand value are not having any impact on the operating profit of this company being insignificant so far as the quantum of the expenditure ... crore and Rs. 3 crore respectively for the year ended March 31, 2013. On a standalone basis, the total R&D expenditure, including eligible R&D expenditure discussed above for fiscal years 2014 and 2013 is as follows:- In crore 2014 2013 Revenue expenditure 873 907 Capital Expenditure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 55/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

view of the above facts, the Ld.AR stated that the AO having finalized by himself disallowances of R&D expenditure which are without any basis and grossly against the provisions of the Act do not warrant a re-look and hence prayed for deleting the disallowance and the claim ... R&D units situated at Thiruvottiyur and Trichy. Further, the DSIR as per Form 3CL issued dated 08/04/2021, has approved eligible R & D Expenditure as per Section 35(2AB) of the Act in the case of assessee is as follows: a) Revenue Expenses Rs.34.80 Cr : Weighted deduction as certified Rs.69.60

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mrf Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

view of the above facts, the Ld.AR stated that the AO having finalized by himself disallowances of R&D expenditure which are without any basis and grossly against the provisions of the Act do not warrant a re-look and hence prayed for deleting the disallowance and the claim ... R&D units situated at Thiruvottiyur and Trichy. Further, the DSIR as per Form 3CL issued dated 08/04/2021, has approved eligible R & D Expenditure as per Section 35(2AB) of the Act in the case of assessee is as follows: a) Revenue Expenses Rs.34.80 Cr : Weighted deduction as certified Rs.69.60