← 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

Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
Section 133ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHBRF). The above said institution was eligible under section 35 of the Act and accordingly the assessee claimed weighted deduction of Rs.17.50 lakhs under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act against the donation of Rs.10.00 lakhs paid by it. The Assessing Officer disallowed ... 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. 4,81,25,000/- for A.Y. 2013-14 and disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.10

Vinati Saraf Mutreja, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -26(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1363/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amrjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1363/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Vinati Saraf Mutreja बिधम/ Acit-26(3) 302, 3Rd Floor, Vinayak 501, 5Th Floor, Vs. Heights, Nargis Dutt Road, Pratyakshkar Building, Bandra (W), Mumbai- Bkc, Bandra (E), 400050. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Artps7699M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Siddharth Kothari Revenue By: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 20.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,75,938/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act Which According To Assessee, Was Based On A Defective Notice & So It Was Bad In Law. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Case Is That The Assessee Had Paid Donation Of Rs.12,50,000/- To M/S. Human Genetics & Population (Hgp) U/S 35(1)(Ii) Of The Act & After Making Donation, The Assessee Claimed Weighted Deduction Of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, The Ao Received Information From Ddit(Inv.), Unit Kolkata About Beneficiaries Of Bogus Donation To M/S. Hgp & As Per The Information, The Assessee

For Appellant: Siddharth KothariFor Respondent: Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(1)(ii)

Rs.12,50,000/- to M/s. Human Genetics and Population (HGP) u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act and after making donation, the assessee claimed weighted deduction of Rs.21,87,500/-. Later, the AO received information from DDIT(Inv.), Unit Kolkata about beneficiaries of bogus donation ... information, the assessee 2 A.Y. 2014-15 Vinati Sarat Mutreja was also a beneficiary [of giving bogus donation to HGP and thereafter claiming weighted deduction]. Therefore, the AO was pleased to disallow the claim of weighted deduction and added the same [Rs.21,87,500/-] by order dated

M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7933/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

circumstances Rs. 2,62,74,26 of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act even though para 4(xii) of DSIR Guidelines on deduction u/s. 35(2AB) clearly state that total revenue ... lakhs. 3. Allowance of R & D expenses (contract receipts):- 3.1 The assessee has approved units at Goa and Baddi, which are claiming weighted deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of IT act of amount ₹ 2318.31 lakhs. During the year, the assessee has incurred gross research and development expenditure of ₹ 5145.84 lakhs

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7742/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

circumstances Rs. 2,62,74,26 of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act even though para 4(xii) of DSIR Guidelines on deduction u/s. 35(2AB) clearly state that total revenue ... lakhs. 3. Allowance of R & D expenses (contract receipts):- 3.1 The assessee has approved units at Goa and Baddi, which are claiming weighted deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of IT act of amount ₹ 2318.31 lakhs. During the year, the assessee has incurred gross research and development expenditure of ₹ 5145.84 lakhs

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 7582/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri O P Sharma, DR
Section 07Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 147Section 30tSection 35

circumstances Rs. 2,62,74,26 of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act even though para 4(xii) of DSIR Guidelines on deduction u/s. 35(2AB) clearly state that total revenue ... lakhs. 3. Allowance of R & D expenses (contract receipts):- 3.1 The assessee has approved units at Goa and Baddi, which are claiming weighted deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of IT act of amount ₹ 2318.31 lakhs. During the year, the assessee has incurred gross research and development expenditure of ₹ 5145.84 lakhs

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2922/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

arises for consideration in both the appeals is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the Assessee for weighted deduction u/s.35AD of the Income Tax Act, ITA Nos.2921 & 2922/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 24 1961 (Act). The issue arises for consideration in both

M/S Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 2921/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sri. V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 35A

arises for consideration in both the appeals is as to whether the revenue authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the Assessee for weighted deduction u/s.35AD of the Income Tax Act, ITA Nos.2921 & 2922/Bang/2018 Page 2 of 24 1961 (Act). The issue arises for consideration in both

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

issues under examination was large deduction claimed under section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) (weighted deduction @ 175% of the amount). 3. Statutory notices were issued under section 143(2) of the Act on 18.03.2016. Thereupon the appellant e-filed its revised return ... income on 13.09.2016 thereby upward revising its total income at Rs. 3,36,09,380/- i.e. on account of withdrawal of claim of weighted deduction at Rs. 70,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act against bogus claim of donation of Rs. 40,00,000/-. This donation

Aspee Agro Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 3167/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-

ITA 3167/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Bhaskaran
Section 10(21)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 14/05/2015. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the ld. AO observed that assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 5 lakhs u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act @ 125% of contribution of Rs.4 lakhs made to M/s. Aspee Agricultural Research and Development Foundation ... been rejected vide order dated 2/11/2012 by CBDT. Based on these facts, the ld. AO proceeded to disallow the claim of weighted deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of Rs.5 lakhs while completing the assessment in the hands of the assessee. This was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. During

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 147Section 250Section 35

hence the proceedings are deemed to invalid and void ab initio. 3. Disallowance of clinical trial expenditure in the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act 3.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the expenditure ... incurred on clinical trials outside the approved research and development facility are not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 3.2 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in incorrectly stating that the decision of the Gujarat High Court

Boscj Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1581/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.1581/Bang/2014 : Asst.Year 2009-2010 M/S.Bosch Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Hoisur Road, Adugodi Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Bangalore - 560 030 Pan : Aaacm9840P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate & Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022 Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.08.2014. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2009-2010. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Diesel Fuel Injection Equipments & Parts Therefore, Auto Electrical Etc. For The Assessment Year 2009-2010, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 29.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.619,75,17,688. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The I.T.Act Vide Order Dated 31.05.2013 By Determining The Total Income At Rs.653,85,57,204. Aggrieved, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The First Appellate Authority. The Cit(A) Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. Aggrieved By The 2 It(Tp)A No.1581/Bang/2014 M/S.Bosch Limited Order Of The Cit(A), On Issues Decided Against The Assesee, An Appeal Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

falls within the ambit of "Capital asset". 4. That the learned CIT(A) LTU erred in upholding the action of Assessing Officer in allowing weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) on the net expenditure of Rs. 30,33,74,421 as against gross expenditure

Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3542/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 33Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

adjudication. 17. Coming to the relevant facts relating to additional ground are, during the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 125% u/s. 35(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to ₹.6,00,00,000/- in respect of the payment for R & D to Calyx Chemicals ... assessee Assessing Officer rejected the same by reference to section u/s. 35(1)(iia) and Rule 5F of the I.T.Rules. Accordingly, he rejected the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee with the following observation: - “5.3.4 The assessee has, till date, not submitted copy of the approval as per Rule

Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3541/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 33Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

adjudication. 17. Coming to the relevant facts relating to additional ground are, during the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 125% u/s. 35(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to ₹.6,00,00,000/- in respect of the payment for R & D to Calyx Chemicals ... assessee Assessing Officer rejected the same by reference to section u/s. 35(1)(iia) and Rule 5F of the I.T.Rules. Accordingly, he rejected the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee with the following observation: - “5.3.4 The assessee has, till date, not submitted copy of the approval as per Rule

Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3540/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 33Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

adjudication. 17. Coming to the relevant facts relating to additional ground are, during the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 125% u/s. 35(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to ₹.6,00,00,000/- in respect of the payment for R & D to Calyx Chemicals ... assessee Assessing Officer rejected the same by reference to section u/s. 35(1)(iia) and Rule 5F of the I.T.Rules. Accordingly, he rejected the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee with the following observation: - “5.3.4 The assessee has, till date, not submitted copy of the approval as per Rule

Agio Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3539/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 33Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

adjudication. 17. Coming to the relevant facts relating to additional ground are, during the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that assessee has claimed weighted deduction @ 125% u/s. 35(1)(iia) of the Act amounting to ₹.6,00,00,000/- in respect of the payment for R & D to Calyx Chemicals ... assessee Assessing Officer rejected the same by reference to section u/s. 35(1)(iia) and Rule 5F of the I.T.Rules. Accordingly, he rejected the weighted deduction claimed by the assessee with the following observation: - “5.3.4 The assessee has, till date, not submitted copy of the approval as per Rule

L&T Infra Debt Fund Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1613/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2015-16
Section 10(47)Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 35

Texmaco Rail and Engineering Ltd v/s PCIT (2017) ITAT Kolkata. In this case, the Hon'ble tribunal has adjudicated that the Assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) on the basis of certificate of recognition granted from SIR, but had not submitted Form 3CK (Which is an agreement between

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. M/S Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Glenmark Income Tax (Ltu)-1, Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 29Th Floor, Center-1, Glenmark House, World Trade Center, Hdo Corporate Building, Cuffe Parade, Wing A, Mumbai – 400 005 Vs. B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakla, Opp. Western Express Highway, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg2207L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 16 . 02 . 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 . 04 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh: The Appellant, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu), Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Revenue’) By Filing The Present Appeal, Sought To Set Aside The Impugned Order Dated 22.11.2019 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Qua The Assessment Year 2009-10 On The Grounds Inter Alia That :-

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, D.R
Section 115JSection 143Section 80CSection 80I

while enhancing the total income, however; since we have already set aside that part of the CIT(A) order withdrawing the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), therefore, the issue regarding mistake in the amount becomes infructuous.” 5. Then AO passed an order under section 143(3) read with section

M/S. Charoen Pokphand Seeds (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 311/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 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 Bijoy Kumar Panda, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order U/S. 263 Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Bengaluru – 2, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Revised 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 10Section 10(1)Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

28/12/2018. In the assessment order the Ld.AO disallowed claim of Page 3 of 10 ₹ 6,73,43,469/- claimed as weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the act by assessee thereby determining the total taxable income of ₹ 1,52,14,731/- in the hands of assessee. 2.3 The Ld.Pr.CIT

Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 519/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mahindra Two Wheelers Ltd, The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Mahindra Trucks Income Tax, 2(2)(2), Ayakar & Buses Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo 400 020 Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7863L

For Appellant: Ms. Karishma Phatarphekar &For Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 194HSection 201Section 40aSection 92C

claimed separately Under the provisions of Section 35 (1) (iv) of the act. Deduction u/s 35 (1) (i) of the act is not a weighted deduction claimed by the assessee. The learned DRP has categorically noted that expenses incurred are small in nature and further the assessee has not brought

M/S. Long Life Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

assessee on 13.9.2016 declaring total income of Rs 5,53,500/-. The return was selected for “Limited Scrutiny” exclusively for verification of claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the assessee. The undisputed fact is that the ld AO proceeded to make enquiry with regard ... This letter is enclosed in page 70 of the paper book dated 31.12.2021 filed before us. 4. The assessee claimed weighted deduction @ 175% of contribution amount totalling to Rs 21,00,000/- (1200000 * 175%) u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the return. The ld AO had even mentioned