“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

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

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

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

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

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

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

deduction u/s 35(2AB) only to the extent of Rs.13,41,29,506/- as against claimed at Rs.13,81,70,841/-, thereby disallowing the weighted deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act to the tune of Rs.40,41,335/-, being 50% of the revenue expenses ignoring the fact that ... Form No.3CL; (ii) quantifying the expenditure incurred on in-house research and development facility by the company during the previous year and eligible for weighted deduction under sub-section (2AB) of section 35 of the Act in Part B of Form No. 3CL;’. 61. As per sub-clause

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1697/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

Garware Technical Fibres Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), Pune

ITA 1696/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And

Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

deduction u/s 35(2AB) only to the extent of Rs.13,41,29,506/- as against claimed at Rs.13,81,70,841/-, thereby disallowing the weighted deduction claimed u/s_35(2AB) of the Act to the tune of Rs.40,41,335/-, being 50% of the revenue expenses ignoring the fact that

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. D Thakkar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3477/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrid Thakkar Developers Pvt. V/S. Dcit 14(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, D1 & D2, 4Th Floor, Court Churchgate, Mumbai Chambers, Vitthaldas Maharashtra-400020 Thackersey Marg, 35 New Marine Lines, Marine Lines, Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp6396E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Acit 14(1)(2), Mumbai V/S. D Thakkar Developers Pvt. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, बनाम Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M K. 1105/1106, Universal Road, Mumbai Magestic, Behind Rbk Maharashtra-400020 International School, P. L. Lokhande, Marg, Chembur West, Mumbai-400043 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp6396E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Kirith ShethFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(vii)

appeal: “1. Whether on the facts of the instant case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in reducing the rate of weighted deduction to 125% from 175% ignoring the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a specified rate ... claiming weighted deduction. 2. Whether on the facts of the instant case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in reducing the rate of weighted deduction to 125% from 175% without assigning any reason for the same and also without discussing the genuineness of the donations made

D Thakkar Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2975/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(vii)

appeal: “1. Whether on the facts of the instant case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in reducing the rate of weighted deduction to 125% from 175% ignoring the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a specified rate ... claiming weighted deduction. 2. Whether on the facts of the instant case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was Justified in reducing the rate of weighted deduction to 125% from 175% without assigning any reason for the same and also without discussing the genuineness of the donations made

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed. Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) : 11. During the year, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act on the revenue expenditure of Rs. 366.36 lakhs. However, as evident from Form 3CL dated 15.03.2017, the DSIR approved ... 538/Ahd/2020 & CO No.9/Ahd/2021 Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemical Ltd Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 15– The AO allowed 100% of the expenditure and not allowed the weighted deduction. The appellant submitted that for the AY 2016-17, there is no need or requirement to get certificate from DSIR on expenditure incurred towards

Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT Circle-1(1)1(), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 348/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, Shri Jimi Patel and Shri Rushin Patel, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Durga Dutt, CIT (DR) &

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 80GSection 8D(2)(ii)

Rallis India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4210/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golwala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT, D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Officer be directed to delete the addition to Book-Profit in respect of disallowance u/s 14A. 11. Both lower authorities erred in disallowing the weighted deduction for revenue scientific expenditure by way of expenditure incurred for scientific research on approved in-house research and development facility ... aggregating to Rs.21,58,10,103/-. 12. Both lower authorities erred in disallowing the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, aggregating to Rs.48,00,835/-. 13. Both lower authorities erred in misreading and misinterpreting the provisions of section 35(2AB) of the Act. 14. The Assessing Officer erred

Orchid Pharma Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.73/Chny/2017 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, FCA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 92A(2)(i)

Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Sun Pharmaceutical industries (TS-6785-ITAT-2016) wherein it was held that where form 3CL is not available, weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) can be allowed. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below. 8.1 We have heard the rival submissions ... specified therein. We have however found sufficient force in the alternate argument of the appellant that in the event of denial of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), for want of prescribed Form 3CL, the assessee would be eligible to at least the deduction u/s 37 / section

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4292/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

Secretary of Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in respect of R & D expenses, which is the mandatory requirement to claim the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid reasons, proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. The assessee

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Jayant Agro Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4291/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154Section 35

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalyan vs. Omkar Speciality Chemical S Ltd, Badlapur Midc

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 2243/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Kalyan, Vs. Omkar Speciality 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza Wayle Nagar, Chemicals Ltd, Khadakpada, Kalyan West, B-34 Midc, Badlapur, Thane, Maharashtra - 421301 Maharashtra - 421503 Pan: Aaaco7311D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 35Section 4Section 40Section 69C

deduction was not allowable. During the appellate proceedings also, the appellant did not file Form 3CLA where it is a prerequisite for allowance of weighted deduction. This disallowance is confirmed on account of the continued failure on the part of the appellant. Therefore, on this ground the appellant partially succeeds

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

provisions of sec.35(2AB), the expenditure incurred in an “in house research and development facility” as approved by the prescribed authority is granted weighted deduction. Under sec.36(1)(xii), the corporation itself should be notified for the purposes of sec.36(1)(xii) of the Act. Hence, while interpreting the provisions

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2522/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

M/S. Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-3

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

ITA 1745/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali, CIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

Revenue, which is sine qua non to invoke the powers u/s.263 of the Act. 14. Coming to next issue is the claim of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act of Rs.1,21,28,068/-, admittedly during the relevant assessment year the assessee company had incurred revenue expenditure of Rs.80 ... corresponding form No.3CK has been filed in this regard to the prescribed authority as a statutory compliance to claim the weighted deduction of revenue expenditure. However, Form 3CL has not been issued by the prescribed authority to the Income Tax authorities as per Rule 6 of the IT rules

Anand Nvh Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequences to follow as per determination of the grounds as above

ITA 705/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Nvh Products P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca0297J

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh BhutaniFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

expenditure towards scientific research of INR 2,88,44,229 and capital expenditure of INR 2,02,60,996. These expenses were claimed as weighted deduction @ 200% under S.35(2AB) of the Act. The DSIR, while approving the expenditure under Form 3CL, quantified and approved capital and revenue expenditure

J G Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T., O, Ward-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 1145/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 40

issued for any income- tax benefits under the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the payment of Rs.1,25,00,000/- for the purpose of availing weighted deduction of 175% u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act made to. M/s School of Human Genetics and Population Health, Kolkata is denied.ht ... force. Though the appellant made a donation of only Rs.1,25,00,000/-, however, he has claimed u/s 35(i)(i) and (ii) weighted deduction amounting to Rs.2,18,75,000/-from his return income. The disallowance is, therefore, restricted to the deduction claimed at Rs.2,18,75,000/-. After

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

other units located in Chennai. While computing total income, the assessee company has claimed an amount of Rs.4,21,44,419/- u/s.35(2AB) as weighted deduction towards research and development expenditure. During the scrutiny assessment the assessing officer restricted the claim to Rs.3,25,53,500/- on the basis