← 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

Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 865/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 865/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Intas The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Plot 423/P/A, Sarkhej Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Bavla Highway, Moraiya, Sanand, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 382213 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci4722M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Bandish Soparkar & Shri Parin अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shah, Ars. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr & Shri Ashish Rajesh Revar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 20.01.2016 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. Ita No. 865/Ahd/2016 [Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Dcit] A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 –

For Appellant: Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 40

disallowance of Rs.50,34,302/- under Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs.6,66,06,663/- under Section 35(2AB) of the Act @ 200% of in-house Research and Development (R&D) expenses of Rs.3 ... expenditure of Rs.3,13,99,290/- as approved by the DSIR. According to the AO, the assessee was not eligible for claim the weighted deduction @200% of R&D expenditure of Rs.25,17,151/-, which was not approved by the DSIR. Accordingly, he disallowed a sum of Rs.50

Pranav Vikas India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1218/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath, Advocate , R.KFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Dwivedi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

115JB of the Act for the book profits and paid taxes on the same. It was further submitted that loss included claim for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act which was pruned by the DSIR. As to the difference between the claim made by the Assessee and allowed ... allowed capital expenditure of Rs.8,52,82,000/- and Revenue expenditure of Rs.3,47,82,000/- totaling to Rs.11,99,96,354/- and allowable weighted deduction @ 150% of Rs.11,99,96,354/- comes to Rs.17,99,94,531/-. Thus, there was difference of Rs.1,73,57,717/- (Rs.19

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawallumis Biotech Pvt Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1)(1), Room No.130, 1St Floor, 501, Arun Chambers, Ayakar Bhavan, Tardeo, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai -400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaacl1066G (अपीऱाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hitesh P. Shah.Ar Respondent By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 31.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 01.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi/Cit(A), Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Hon. Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated The Fact That The Appellant Could Not Represent Its Case Due To Circumstances Beyond Its Control. 2 The Hon. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Disregarding The Fact That The Accountant Had Made Inadvertent Mistake In Claiming Deduction U/S.35(2Aa).

Section 35

mistake in claiming deduction U/S.35(2AA). 2 Lumis Biotech Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the weighted deduction of expenditure on research and development of Rs. 1,36,40,254/-. 4 The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition Rs.6 ... information supporting the claims made in return of income. The AO on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction u/s 35(2AA) of the Act of Rs.1,36,40,254/- and find that the assessee has not filed the relevant documents i.e Form

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

noted that during the year under consideration, assessee has claimed Revenue expenditure of Rs.7,10,30,334/- on which it has claimed 200% deduction (weighted deduction) u/s.35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.14,20,60,668/-. However, the AO noted from Form No.3CL that recurring expenditure (other than Land ... that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance wrongly made by the A.O., without appreciating that the assessee was eligible for weighted deduction based on the Auditor's certificates and the tax audit report; that alternatively and without prejudice, the assessee had incurred the expenditure on Scientific

DCIT(E)1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Register of Shiping, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4084/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhridcit(E)1(1) V/S Indian Register Of Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, बनाम Shipping, Mtnl Building, Cumballa 52A, Adi Shankaracharya Hill, Marg, Apposite Powai Mumbai-400026 Lake, Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci2381M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh
Section 10(21)Section 11(5)Section 25Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

exemption of income u/s 10(21) was made, the same was requisitioned for perusal which has been filed. Section 35(1)(ii) allows weighted deduction to a donor in respect of sum paid to an organization for scientific research. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: “35. (1) In respect

Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

infructous. 6. In ground No.III, assessee has raised the issue of deduction claim made u/s.35 (2AB) of the Act. The assessee company has claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) showing that it has incurred expenditure of scientific research and development to the tune of Rs. 75.16 crores. Out of which ... assessee had claimed Rs. 129.94 crores as 200% weighted deduction. Before the ld. AO assessee produced certificate issued by DSIR in Form 3CL and reconciliation of the same. The ld. AO asked the assessee as to why like in the earlier years similar addition should not be made in this

Dy CIT Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for

ITA 3063/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

infructous. 6. In ground No.III, assessee has raised the issue of deduction claim made u/s.35 (2AB) of the Act. The assessee company has claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) showing that it has incurred expenditure of scientific research and development to the tune of Rs. 75.16 crores. Out of which ... assessee had claimed Rs. 129.94 crores as 200% weighted deduction. Before the ld. AO assessee produced certificate issued by DSIR in Form 3CL and reconciliation of the same. The Id. AO asked the assessee as to why like in the earlier years similar addition should not be made in this

Dy CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints, Mumbai

ITA 2936/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

infructuous. 6. In ground No.III, assessee has raised the issue of deduction claim made u/s.35 (2AB) of the Act. The assessee company has claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) showing that it has incurred expenditure of scientific research and development to the tune of Rs. 75.16 crores. Out of which ... assessee had claimed Rs. 129.94 crores as 200% weighted deduction. Before the ld. AO assessee produced certificate issued by DSIR in Form 3CL and reconciliation of the same. The ld. AO asked the assessee as to why like in the earlier years similar addition should not be made in this

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 2, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2700/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

infructuous. 6. In ground No.III, assessee has raised the issue of deduction claim made u/s.35 (2AB) of the Act. The assessee company has claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) showing that it has incurred expenditure of scientific research and development to the tune of Rs. 75.16 crores. Out of which ... assessee had claimed Rs. 129.94 crores as 200% weighted deduction. Before the ld. AO assessee produced certificate issued by DSIR in Form 3CL and reconciliation of the same. The ld. AO asked the assessee as to why like in the earlier years similar addition should not be made in this

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2697/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

infructous. 6. In ground No.III, assessee has raised the issue of deduction claim made u/s.35 (2AB) of the Act. The assessee company has claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) showing that it has incurred expenditure of scientific research and development to the tune of Rs. 75.16 crores. Out of which ... assessee had claimed Rs. 129.94 crores as 200% weighted deduction. Before the ld. AO assessee produced certificate issued by DSIR in Form 3CL and reconciliation of the same. The ld. AO asked the assessee as to why like in the earlier years similar addition should not be made in this

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

infructous. 6. In ground No.III, assessee has raised the issue of deduction claim made u/s.35 (2AB) of the Act. The assessee company has claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) showing that it has incurred expenditure of scientific research and development to the tune of Rs. 75.16 crores. Out of which ... assessee had claimed Rs. 129.94 crores as 200% weighted deduction. Before the ld. AO assessee produced certificate issued by DSIR in Form 3CL and reconciliation of the same. The ld. AO asked the assessee as to why like in the earlier years similar addition should not be made in this

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 352/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

concerned, all these three issues are involved. Those are additions made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues ... direct the learned Assessing Officer / learned TPO to adopt the same. Grounds are partly allowed accordingly. 32. Next and last issue relates to the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred on the expenditure not Page 13 of 17 quantified in the expenditure approved

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 321/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 352/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Adv. B.G. ReddyFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav,CIT( DR)
Section 35Section 92B

concerned, all these three issues are involved. Those are additions made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues ... direct the learned Assessing Officer / learned TPO to adopt the same. Grounds are partly allowed accordingly. 32. Next and last issue relates to the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of the expenditure incurred on the expenditure not Page 13 of 17 quantified in the expenditure approved

S Kant Healthcare Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1975/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya, Sr. A.R
Section 143(3)Section 35

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [here- in-after referred to as Ld. CIT (Appeals)) was not justified and grossly erred in disallowing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) despite the amendment relating to Form 3CL requirement is w.e.f 01-07-2016. 2.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances ... hearing of this appeal.” 4. Suffice to say, the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground raised herein seeks to claim section 35(2AB) “weighted” deduction which has been disallowed by both the lower authorities to the tune of Rs.76,46,246/- on the ground that the prescribed authority

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad Knowledge City vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 351/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

For Appellant: Advocate BG ReddyFor Respondent: Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 35

these three issues are involved. Those are addi"ons made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues in the light

ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 320/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 320/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aabca7366H] आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 351/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit, Central Circle 1(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aabca7366H अपीलाथ" / Appellant "" यथ" / Respondent राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri M Vijay Kumar, Cit(Dr) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Bg Reddy

For Appellant: Advocate BG ReddyFor Respondent: Shri M Vijay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 35

these three issues are involved. Those are addi"ons made in respect of the Corporate Guarantee commission, interest on receivables and disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). We shall now proceed to answer these three issues in the light

Ami Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Accordingly, the disallowance made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and the assessee's claim is allowed in full

ITA 544/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.544/Ahd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. The Acit बनाम/ 701 To 710 Lilleria 1038 Circle-1(1)(1) Next To Zydex Office Vadodara V/S. Gotri Sevasi Road Vadodara – 390 020 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) ….. "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 12/06/2023 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 21/12/2018 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Ami Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2 Facts Of The Case:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd of Mumbai Special Bench (ITA No. 5792/Mum/2009 dated 6-12-2010). 2.4. The assessee also had claimed weighted deduction of Rs.3,63,58,968/- u/s.35(2AB). The AO considered report in form 3CL issued by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR ... restricted claim of the assessee to Rs.310.92 Lakhs disallowing Rs.26.33 Lacs. The AO allowed revenue expenditure of Rs. 26.33 Lakhs and disallowed weighted deduction amount of Rs. 26.33 Lakhs. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. During the course

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2128/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

total income of Rs.3,65,52,386/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. A.O. disallowed the Weighted deduction of Rs.1,08,52,645/-, claimed by the assessee U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act, without giving proper and reasonable opportunity to the assessee ... appellant, which were never revoked since 2001. The assessee has grievance that ld. A.O. without giving proper opportunity has disallowed the said weighted deduction and has done grave injustice to appellant. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).But the ld. CIT(A) dismissed

Chemstar International, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & Ay. 2014-15) Chemstar International Vs. Dcit-24(1) 102-D, Nirman Palace, Piramal Chambers, Pump House, Rajmata Lalbaug, Mumbai- Jijabai Road, Andheri 400012. East, Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aabfc8974G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 05.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that the assesses has challenged disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.4,81,25,0007- for A.Y. 2013-14 and disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed ... made donation of Rs,2,00,00,000/ to Matrivani and Rs,4,00,00,000/ to SHG and claimed weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000 under section 35(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being 175% of the aggregate sum of Rs.6

Chemstar International, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3798/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & Ay. 2014-15) Chemstar International Vs. Dcit-24(1) 102-D, Nirman Palace, Piramal Chambers, Pump House, Rajmata Lalbaug, Mumbai- Jijabai Road, Andheri 400012. East, Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aabfc8974G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 05.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that the assesses has challenged disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.4,81,25,0007- for A.Y. 2013-14 and disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed ... made donation of Rs,2,00,00,000/ to Matrivani and Rs,4,00,00,000/ to SHG and claimed weighted deduction of Rs.10,50,00,000 under section 35(l)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being 175% of the aggregate sum of Rs.6