“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

ACIT- Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cg Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (Formerly Known As Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 80I

deduction Total 19,91,16,989 23,40,82,434 The provisions of sec. 35(2AB) allows weighted deduction @ 150% of the expenses incurred on scientific research on in-house research and development facility. All capital expenditure incurred in this regard (other than the expenditure in the nature of cost ... that the above said expenses have not been certified by DSIR. Accordingly he held that the additional deduction of 50% in the form of weighted deduction will not be available on it. 7 M/s. CG Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (formerly known as Crompton Greaves Ltd.) 16. The assessee also

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92C

Appellant to claim deduction under the proviso to the section at any subsequent point of time. The addition be deleted. 6. Allowance of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in respect to Amount certified as per Form 3CL Rs. 10,15,82,72,000/- (Amount certified in 3CL and also ... Appellant in its return of income, rejecting the contentions of the Appellant in this regard. In particular, the learned ACIT erred in not allowing weighted deduction with reference to Rs. 10,15,82,72,000/- being the amount approved by DSIR in form 3CL. Without prejudice to the generality

Sami-Sabinsa Group Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 184/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, DR

Section 234ASection 35(1)(i)

without appreciating that the same was incurred for the purpose of business of the appellant even if it did not qualify for weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB). 78. The Appellant has a state-of-the-art in house research facility in Peenya, Bangalore. The Appellant has a modern R&D center ... lakhs) Capital Expenditure 233.20 233.20 NIL Revenue Expenditure 875.25 871.40 3.85 Eligible R&D Expenditure u/s 35(2AB) 1108.45 1104.60 3.85 Weighted deduction at 200% 2216.92 2209.20 7.72 82. No specific reason is furnished by DSIR for the small disallowance of Rs.7.72 lakhs made by them. Although the company feels

M/S. India Pistons Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 797/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan – (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 36(1)(va)

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing officer towards the claim of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) amounting to Rs.3,65,049/-. 2.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the appellant has satisfied all the requirements of section ... application along with all Annexures giving the particulars of expenditure incurred in the approved R&D facilities and hence, the appellant's claim of weighted deduction should be allowed. 2.2 The appellant relies on the following decisions: CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd 326 ITR 251 (Guj) Wheels India

Nippo Batteries Company Ltd(Now Indo National Ltd), Chennai vs. ACIT, CC 4(2), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 927/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143Section 234BSection 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 35(2)(A)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

appellant objects to the disallowance of Rs.47,000/- applying the provisions of Section 40AB of the Act u/s 40 (a)(3). c) The weighted deduction claimed at 200% under the provisions of Section 35 (2)(A)(B) -Rs.21.89.730/-: The appellant objects to the disallowance of Rs.21,89,730/- being ... assessment proceedings. The learned officers below have not properly appreciated the various facts and circumstances relating to the claim of Research & Development and its weighted deduction. The observations and inferences of the learned Officers below are not correct both in law and on facts. The appellant objects to the levy

Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt./Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessmetnt Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1224/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 69CSection 92C(1)

directed to delete the addition of INR 41,500/- made by him to the Appellant's total income. 3 : 0 Disallowance of weighted deduction of INR 1,87,96,989/- under section 35[2AB] of the Act 3 : 1 The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and on the facts ... case in disallowing weighted deduction of INR 1,87,96,989/-, out of the total weighted deduction of INR 21,20,74,9897- claimed by the Appellant under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 3 : 2 The learned AO/DRP has erred in law and on the facts of the case

Pochiraju Industries Limited, Hosur vs. ACIT Circle 1, Hosur

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

ITA 1719/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1719/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)

considered the view of deduction towards R&D expenditure u/s. 35(1) of the Act, after considering the explanation of the assessee for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act and opined that the assessee is not entitled for weighted deduction and expenditure incurred for scientific and research

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT-CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in allowing appeal of the assessee and directing the assessing officer to allow the weighted deduction at 200% in respect of R&D expenditure u/s 35(2A11) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. Rs.80,19,668/- 7. Whether

ACIT -3(4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR

Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Naresh Kumar Balodia Pr -CIT -1, Mumbai

In the result, the order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the learned PCIT on 22ndMarch 2022 for A

ITA 742/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrirahul Chaudhary, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Fdc Limited Income Tax–I, Fdc Limited 142–148, Room No. 330, Fdc Limited 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mk Road Mumbai 400102 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacf0253H Assessee By : Shri K Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

allowed claim of assessee under those sections despite form no.3CL issued by the DSIR certifying the eligible expenses for the purpose of claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act has not been furnished by the assessee. As learned Assessing Officer has allowed the deduction without the mandatory

Asst CIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1739/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal () Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Pan : Aaacm3025E Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent Asst.Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs 020Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Circle-2(2)(1), Mumbai Corporation Taxation, P.K. Kurne Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Mumbai-400 Pan : Aaacm3025E Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

proposed various other additions such as, on premium payable on FCCBs, provision for warranty, disallowance under section 14A, addition under section 40(a)(ia), weighted deduction under section 35 (2AB), dealer incentive and service coupon under section 40(a)(ia), disallowance under section 80IC and octroi incentive thereby proposing ... assessee and delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. GROUND 8 : DISALLOWNCE OF WEIGHTED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 35(2AB) OF THE ACT. 41. This ground of appeal of the assessee pertains to the restriction of claim for weighted deduction under section

Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir -2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1676/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 40Section 80I

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 737/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 263Section 3Section 35

impugned revision order u/s 263 of the Act on 19-03-2022. The revision order was passed with regard to the claim for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act @ 200% of the expenses. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had incurred capital and revenue expenditure on scientific ... research to the tune of Rs.20,93,48,000/- and accordingly claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 41,86,96,000/- u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The case of Ld CIT was that the AO 2 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Private Limited has allowed the above said deduction without verifying

Charoen Pokphand Seeds India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 509/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds India The Principal Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 1021/1, Service Income Tax, Road, Gitanjali Layout, Bengaluru – 2, Hal Iii Stage, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan: Aaccc3259N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. Ramesh, Ca : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 15.03.2022 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Appellant Objects To The Revision Order Passed U/S. 263 On The Following Grounds In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The As It Is Opposed To Law & Circumstances Of The Case: - Originally The Appellant Has Taken Only One Ground Relating To Deduction U/S.35(2Ab). The Following Grounds Were Not Taken By Oversight. Hence The Appellant Is Filing Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Mentioned Below.

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CA

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

completed under section 143 (3) of the Act on 23/12/2019. In the assessment order the Ld.AO disallowed ₹ 7,52,26,133/- claimed as weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the act in absence of Form 3CL issued by DSIR thereby determining the total taxable income

Kitir Laxmichand Lapsia, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1202/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhkirit Laxmichand Lapsia Vs. Acit-17(2) A-43, Bharat Thirth Chs, R.No. 137, Aayakar V. N. Purav Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Chembur – 400 071 Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: M.SubramaianFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

taxman.com 19 (Mumbai Tribunal) held that where approval granted u/s 35(1)(ii) to Scientific Search Society was cancelled subsequently with retrospective effect, weighted deduction claimed by the assessee donor u/s 35(1)(ii) could not be denied , if there was valid and subsisting approval when donation was given

M/S Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14 Bosch Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Hosur Road, Adugodi, Of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 1, Pan: Aaacm 9840P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Advocate Respondent By : Shri V S Chakrapani, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S.2. This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Cit(Appeals), Bangalore-9, Bangalore Dated 31.3.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013- 14. 3. The Assessee Raised Grounds Pertaining To The Following Issues:- Deduction U/S. 35(2Ab) Computed On Net Expenditure As Opposed To Gross Expenditure Disallowance Of Provision For Bad & Doubtful Debts I) Disallowance Of Provision For Long Term Service Award Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 14A Of The Act Ii) Page 2 Of 67

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 35Section 37Section 43BSection 80J

COMPUTED ON NET EXPENDITURE AS OPPOSED TO GROSS EXPENDITURE 2.1. That the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Respondent in allowing weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act only on the net expenditure as against granting the same on the gross expenditure. 2.2. That ... case [IT(TP)A No.1556 & ITA No.1582/Bang/2014] has considered similar issue and it was observed that – “9. The next issue relates to claim of weighted deduction made by the assessee u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs.40.96 crores

DCIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal we refrain to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, ...

ITA 2575/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla and Shri Pratik PodarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 35Section 40

facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) erred in facts and law in allowing the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act made by the assessee company in respect of expenditure not approved by the DSIR and incurred by the assessee on clinical ... facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) erred in facts and law in allowing the claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act made by the assessee company in respect of expenditure not approved by the DSIR and incurred by the assessee on foreign

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

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

ITA 3650/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

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

M/S Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 14 (1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7401/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(2)Section 35

research and the quantum of such expenditure on scientific research, which is a sum of Rs.7,80,52,805, is not in dispute. The weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) at 150% was claimed by the assessee at a sum of Rs.12,57,00,920. What is now to be examined

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 655/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Asian Paints Ltd., V. Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 6A, Shantinagar 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Cit – Ltu – 2 V. M/S. Asian Paints Ltd., Centre-1, 29Th Floor 6A, Shantinagar World Trade Centre Santacruz (East) Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai – 400055 Pan: Aaaca3622K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Das

Section 115OSection 14A

revenue and capital expenditure on in-house research and development facilities during the year and therefore assessee claimed that he it is entitled to weighted deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of the income tax act. The assessee incurred an expenditure of ₹ 22.97 crores; however, as per the certificate issued the eligible ... solitary issue relating to the addition of Rs.27.17 lakhs made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of weighted deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 35(2AB) on account of research and development expenditure. 11. Now we shall take up the appeal of the assessee