← All Phrases

“weighted deduction”

Business ExpensesSection 35(2AB)Section 35(2AB)486 judgments

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

Leading authorities on weighted deduction

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.

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.

Tejas Network Ltd. v. DCIT
60 Taxmann.com 309 · 2015 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot question the correctness of the certificate issued by the prescribed authority for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The deduction is limited to the amount approved and certified by the competent authority.

Judgments citing weighted deduction

Coromandel International Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

DCIT 4. Disallowance of claim under section 35(2AB) of the Act: a. The Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in disallowing the weighted deduction of INR 2,75,00,000 claimed by the Appellant under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, solely on the basis of a mechanical comparison

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhalia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

dispute are that before the The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that before the Assessing Officer the assessee claimed average weighted deduction he assessee claimed average weighted deduction he assessee claimed average weighted deduction of Rs.3 ... return of n 35(2AB) of the Act. In its return of income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 3,50,00,000/ 3,50,00,000/- under Section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cicle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Bombay Minerals Limited, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

dispute are that before the The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that before the Assessing Officer the assessee claimed average weighted deduction he assessee claimed average weighted deduction he assessee claimed average weighted deduction of Rs.3 ... return of n 35(2AB) of the Act. In its return of income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 3,50,00,000/ 3,50,00,000/- under Section

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhaliya vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Respondent: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that before the Assessing Officer the assessee claimed average weighted deduction of Rs.3,50,00,000/- u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act at the rate of 175% in respect of research and development expenses debited of Rs.2 ... Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. In its return of income, the appellant claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, being 1.75 times the amount paid. The AO however disputed

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

held that "the expenditure as approved by the DSIR in the certificate given by them in form 3GL alone o be granted weighted deduction b) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Limited v. DCIT (Writ Petition No 7004/2014 ) held that for the purposes ... held that "the expenditure as approved by the DSIR in the certificate given by them in form 3CL alone is to be granted weighted deduction..." (b) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Limited v. DCIT (Writ Petition No. 7004/2014) held that for the purposes

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

held that "the expenditure as approved by the DSIR in the certificate given by them in form 3GL alone o be granted weighted deduction b) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Limited v. DCIT (Writ Petition No 7004/2014 ) held that for the purposes ... held that "the expenditure as approved by the DSIR in the certificate given by them in form 3CL alone is to be granted weighted deduction..." (b) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Limited v. DCIT (Writ Petition No. 7004/2014) held that for the purposes

Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1165/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1165/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2023-2024 Ntt Managed Services India Private Limited, The Dcit, Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Pin 500 081 Pan Aarcs7517G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By -None- राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Mathivanan Sa, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Sri Mathivanan SA, Sr. AR
Section 108(8)Section 143(1)Section 80J

appeal ex-parte. 5 ITA.No.1165/Hyd./2025 4. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding disallowance of claim of weighted deduction u/sec.80JJAA Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 by the CPC which was upheld by the learned CIT(A). 5. We have heard

ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Ahmedabad vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

case and in law, the Id.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 94,26,38,250/- on account of weighted Deduction claim of the assessee u/s 35(2AB) in excess of that allowed by the DSIR in Form 3CL. 15) Whether on the facts and the circumstances ... Ground No. 13 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. ACIT Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 21– Ground No. 14 – Disallowance of Weighted Deduction u/s 35(2AB) 9. This ground relates to the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer by restricting the assessee’s claim

Ramjidas Budhraja Charitable Trust (Sgm), Chhindwara vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Appeal (AAC) Additional claim in appeal of AAC to train additional claim-Clain of weighted deduction under 350 on additional terms- Claim for weighted deduction having steady been set up before ITO, Tribunal was used in directing the AAC to consider claim under 350 n respect of additional terms (COMMISSIONER ... Appeal (AAC) Additional claim in appeal-Powers of AAC to entertain additional claim-Claim of weighted deduction under s. 35B on additional items-Claim for weighted deduction having alreacly been set up before ITO, Tribunal was justified in directing the AAC to consider claim under s. 358 in respect

DCIT, Kolkata vs. Himadri Speciality Chemical Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan&For Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, DR
Section 115JSection 92C

Haripal, Dist. Hooghly, which has been recognized by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Govt. of India (DSIR) vide letter dated 29/03/2011 and claimed weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. In the reconciliation statement of R & D Expenditure drawn by the appellant for tax computation purposes, the appellant ... Cummins India Limited [ITA No.309/Pun/2014 order dated 15.05.2018] had held that the action of the Assessing Officer in curtailing the expenditure and consequent weighted deduction claim u/s 35(2AB) of the I.T.Act on the surmise that prescribed authority has only approved part of expenditure inform No.3CL is not tenable

Triveni Turbine Ltd, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle 5(3)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 35Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,000 claimed by the appellant under section 35(2AA) of the Act, being the amount paid to IIT, Bombay during the year under ... That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not. deleting the disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,000 claimed by the appellant under section 35(2AA) of the Act, being the amount paid to IT, Bombay during the year under

M/S. Bodal Chemicals Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

income of Rs.1,17,51,95,340/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs.1,29,50,000/- u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act against a donation of Rs.74,00,000/- to “Shri Aurobindo Institute ... year under consideration, the assessee made a donation of Rs.74,00,000/- to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust and claimed weighted deduction of Rs.1,29,50,000/- u/s 35(1)(ii) being 175% of the amount donated. At the time of making the donation, the trust

Rotofilt Engineers Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1628/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: This Tribunal. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company

Section 143(3)Section 35

fact that plant and machinery for a sum of Rs.1,11,68,208/- were not exclusively used for R&D purpose and hence weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) in respect of this amount was reduced from original claim. At the same time, since the claim u/s.35(2AB) in respect of this

Acitltu-2, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 945/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

Ground No. 7 (7.1 to 7.6.) raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction on R & D expenditure for want of Form 3CL. 37. Having heard both the parties, at the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer ... been adjudicated. The relevant para 4 of the said decision is reproduced herein below: 4. Ground No.2 is regarding disallowance of claim of weighted deduction on R&D expenditure to the tune of Rs.23,13,53,553/-, since expenditure was not approved by DSIR. It is noted that similar ground

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle 1 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 895/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.895/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ashok Leyland Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Income Tax, Chennai 600 032. Company Circle – Ltu, Chennai. [Pan: Aaaca4651L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.945/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Income Tax, 1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Large Taxpayer Unit – 2, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2017 Passed By The Ld.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, CIT

Ground No. 7 (7.1 to 7.6.) raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction on R & D expenditure for want of Form 3CL. 37. Having heard both the parties, at the outset, we note that the Assessing Officer ... been adjudicated. The relevant para 4 of the said decision is reproduced herein below: 4. Ground No.2 is regarding disallowance of claim of weighted deduction on R&D expenditure to the tune of Rs.23,13,53,553/-, since expenditure was not approved by DSIR. It is noted that similar ground

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers, Mumbai

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025
Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

case of Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana (VYASA) that it was engaged in organized scam of providing bogus entries to various parties to claim weighted deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and to evade the taxes? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

294/Bang/2025 Page 36 of 53 47. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 4 of the appeal pertains to disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 48. The necessary facts are that during the year under ... units. These R&D units were approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). Based on this, the assessee claimed weighted deduction at 150% under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, amounting to ₹1,88,39,36,665/- only. 48.1 During the assessment proceedings

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

294/Bang/2025 Page 36 of 53 47. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 4 of the appeal pertains to disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 48. The necessary facts are that during the year under ... units. These R&D units were approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). Based on this, the assessee claimed weighted deduction at 150% under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, amounting to ₹1,88,39,36,665/- only. 48.1 During the assessment proceedings

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

assessee is hereby allowed. 47. The next issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 4 of the appeal pertains to disallowances of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act claimed on account of R&D facility. 48. The necessary facts are that during the year under consideration ... units. These R&D units were approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). Based on this, the assessee claimed weighted deduction at 150% under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, amounting to ₹1,88,39,36,665/- only. 48.1 During the assessment proceedings