← 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

Ants Ceramics P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Thane

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 970/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 970/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 971/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Ants Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. Pcit, Thane-1 B Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th 1 Jivdani Ind. Estate No.1, Vs. Off. Western Express Floor, Road No.16Z, Highway, Dhumal Nagar, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vasai Road (E), 401208. Thane (W), Thane, Maharashtra-400604. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca3194D (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Anil Sathe Revenue By: Ms. Shailja Rai (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ita. No. 971/Mum/2021 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane- Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 263Section 35

income on 16.10.2016 declaring total loss to the tune of Rs.10,11,928/- after claiming 3 ITA. No.970/Mum/2021 A.Ys.2016-17 & 2017-18 weighted deduction of Rs.56,15,494/- u/s 35(2AB) of the I. T. Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter, the assessment was completed

Aarti Industrial Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose and appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3695/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bledcit – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., Room No. 470, 4Th Floor 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Mumbai - 400020 Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 145/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita.No. 3583/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)] M/S. Arti Industries Ltd., V. Dcit – 15(1)(1) 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Mulund-Goregoaon Link Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mulund(W), Mumbai -400080 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca2787L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By : Ms. Shailaja Rai & Shri Mehul Jain

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai &
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition on account of disallowance~ of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) amounting to Rs.13,97,23,024/-, ignoring that the assessee has failed to produce the copies of agreement entered with ... Vide Ground No. 2, the revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition on account of disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 4,40,26,667/-. The Ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has failed to provide

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhavesh Arunkumar Vs. Acit – 19(1) Shah Matru Mandir G-7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Grant Road, Tardeo, 1St Panjrapole Lane, Cp Mumbai-400007 Tank, Mumbai – 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Andps5035M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Suchek Anchaliya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.C.T. Mathews. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Suchek Anchaliya.ARFor Respondent: Mr.C.T. Mathews. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 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 Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of crossexamination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of-the judgment

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as directed above

ITA 4675/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Asst. Commissioner Income Asian Paints Ltd. Tax, (Large Taxpayer Unit)-2, 6A Shanti Nagar, Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), World Trade Centre, Cuffee Mumbai-400 055 Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaaca3622K Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of 6A Shanti Nagar, Income Tax-Ltu Cuffe Parade,, 29 Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055 World Trade Centre, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Milind Chavan, Sr Dr Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02 .2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. These Are Cross Appeals Filed By Asian Paints Ltd [Appellant/Assessee] & The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax – Large Taxpayers Unit

For Appellant: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri
Section 14ASection 35

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