“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

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

deduction 4 under section 37(1) Disallowance of sales Ground No.2 promotion expenses Expenditure on Ground No.3 C.O. No. 5 Employee's stock option Weighted deduction u/s Ground No. 4 Ground 35(2AB) & 5 No.1 to 3 Pre-commencement Ground No.6 C.O. No. 6 expenses Deduction u/s 10AA Additional Ground ... Corporate 41,13,867 Guarantee and Letter of comfort 5. The AO made adjustment to the profits eligible for deduction under section 80IB towards weighted deduction disallowed under section 35(2AB), disallowance of Sales Promotion expenses and disallowance of ESOP expenses to allow additional deduction of Rs.6

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Viswaat Chemicals Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-54, Earnest House

In the result, original grounds no

ITA 3494/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalviswaat Chemicals Limited, 909/910 Eco Star, Vishweshwar Nagar, Behind Udupi Vihae Hotel, Mumbai-400 063 Pan: Aaacv4184B ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cen. Cir. 6(3), 102, 1St Floor, Earnest House, Ncpa Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Ld. DR

Section 234BSection 250Section 28Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 37

basis of Form 3CL received from the DSIR authority. The appellant prays that it shall be eligible for full weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act as it is incurred for the purpose of scientific research. The appellant prays that the said disallowance is not correct and may please ... basis of Form 3CL received from the DSIR authority. The appellant prays that it shall be eligible for full weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act as it is incurred for the purpose of scientific research related to the business of the Appellant. The appellant prays that the said

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research ('DSIR') and eligible for claiming deduction section 35(2AB) of the Act. During the year, the assessee claimed weighted deduction amounting to Rs. 27,30,84,651/- (i.e. 12,55,73,093+14,75,11,558) under section ... Rule 6(7A) applies prospectively w.e.f., 01.07.2016 and thus, prior to that Form 3CL granting approval by prescribed authority in relation to quantification of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) had no legal sanctity: Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd [2021] 124 taxmann.com 73 (Bangalore - Trib.) DCIT

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish the certificate issued by the Department of Science and Industrial Research ... income. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that it has recognised R&D Unit at Turbhe (Navi Mumbai) and during the year claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act with respect to expenditures incurred for R&D activities. The assessee furnished the copy of approval received from

Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

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

ITA 1673/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Bhatt a/wFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

M/S. Iolite Cube Inframaterial Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 88/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2016-17 Iolite Cube Inframaterial Ltd. Dcit, Cent.Cir.3 1, Chandramani Nagar Vs Vadodara. Vidhya Vihar Subhanpura, Vadodara 390 020. Pan : Aacci 5944 A (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

profit and loss account.” 5. As is evident from the above, solitary issue in the present appeal relates to denial of weighted deduction to the assessee on donation made to a scientific research institute in terms of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The amount of donation being Rs.1 ... weighted deduction allowable and claimed on the same amounting to Rs.93,75,000/-. Thus, resulting in total deduction claimed by the assessee, which was denied concurrently both by the AO and the ld.CIT(A), amounting to Rs.2,18,75,000/-. The assessee has also raised the issue of the denial

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 840/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce the certificate issued by the Department of Science and Industrial Research ... same. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that it has recognised R&D Unit at Turbhe (Navi Mumbai) and during the year claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act with respect to expenditures incurred for R&D activities. The assessee furnished the copy of approval received from

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed holding that the learned CIT appeal is correct in allowing

ITA 269/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce the certificate issued by the Department of Science and Industrial Research ... same. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that it has recognised R&D Unit at Turbhe (Navi Mumbai) and during the year claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act with respect to expenditures incurred for R&D activities. The assessee furnished the copy of approval received from

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House 6A, Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East) Mumbai 400 055 Pan – Aaaca3622K Appellant Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai V/S

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailasian Paints Ltd. Asian Paints House

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

DCIT (Ltu) 2, Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Vachashpati Tripathi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5363/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us.

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14A

ASIAN PAINTS LTD. ITA NO.5363/MUM./2017 ITA NO.5934/MUM./2017 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55

Arrdy Enginnering Innovations (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

revised return of income revising the income to Rs. 3,75,63,580/-. While filing the return of income, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The Ld. AO observed that there is an escapement of income with respect to deduction claimed ... issued notice U/s. 148 on 23/01/2009. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO rejected the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee U/s. 35(2AB) of the Act apart from making disallowance for Donation and for non-compliance U/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. AO also added

Arrdy Engineering Innovatins (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1172/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, With Shri DhrunalBhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 43BSection 80

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in not allowing weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) in respect of the following items of expenditure incurred by the appellant-company on research and development. (a) Interest on loan 45,65,573 (b) Labour and Job work ... issue raised by the assessee vide ground No. 7 of its appeal is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act on certain items. 36. The AO during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee claimed weighted deduction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 888/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.888/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ………. Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata. Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (Pan: Aabcb2066P) …………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit (Dr) Appeared For Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 19.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nfac, Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 24.03.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act By Ao, Income Tax Department, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Dated 22.03.2021. 2. There Is A Delay Of 93 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. An Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed By The Revenue Which Is Placed On Record. After Perusal Of The Same, We Notice That I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2023 A Y: 2018-19, Britannia Industries Ltd. Though The Impugned Order Was Passed On 24.03.2023 But The Same Was Received In The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata On 04.08.2023 To This Effect A Certificate Is Filed By The Revenue Authorities. Considering This To Be Reasonable Cause & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

complete scrutiny assessment proceedings carried out and/or framed on 22.03.2021. Two of the issues which are in dispute before us relate to disallowance of weighted deduction given u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs.26,72,16,908/- and disallowance of deduction for amortization of lease premium at Rs.33 ... 461/Kol/2023 dated 14.12.2023. 6. So far as the first ground of appeal is concerned regarding disallowance in respect of weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of expenditure incurred towards scientific research Page 2 of 6 I.T.A. No. 888/Kol/2023 A Y: 2018-19, Britannia Industries

Zydus Lifesciences Limited (Formerly Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1884/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. (Formerly Vs. The Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Known As Cadila Healthcare Ltd., Ahmedabad. 4Th Floor, D-Wing, Zydus Corporate Park, Scheme No.63, Survey No.536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr.Vaishnodvi Circle, Sg Highway, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacc 6253 G (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Jigar Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

facts in making an addition of Rs.38,52,07,000/- by holding that the appellant was not entitled to the weighted deduction for expenditure on Scientific Research u/s. 35(2AB) in respect of Clinical Trials and Bio-equivalence Study. 6. That the learned Assessing Officer erred ... facts in making an addition of Rs.42,37,38,000/- by holding that the appellant was not entitled to the weighted deduction for expenditure on Scientific Research u/s. 35(2AB) being non-eligible expenditure. 29. The above grounds, it was pointed out, related to the issue of claim of weighted

Bharat Dynamics Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Bharat Dynamics Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pan : Aaacb7880N. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Dave, Ca. Revenue By: Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr.Ar.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Dave, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

record. Admittedly, there was no dispute that the assessee has incurred capital expenditure of Rs.7.98 crores on scientific research which is entitled for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act and the balance amount of Rs.46.56 crores, which was revenue expenditure spent on scientific research. Out of this, assessee ... lakhs, form 3CL computed the deduction allowable to the assessee only on sum of Rs.468.98 lakhs. Therefore, admittedly the assessee is not eligible for weighted deduction on the sum of Rs. 8.41 lakhs. However, the assessee has been denied deduction on this sum u/s 37(1) of the Act itself