“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

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 35

directed to grant exemption u/s.10AA of the Act and to re-compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. 8. Non granting of weighted deduction u/s.35(AB) of the Act on expenditure of INR 13,10,97,715 incurred by the Appellant 8.1 The Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has erred ... granting weighted deduction of 200% u/s.35(248) (ie. Rs.26,21,95,429/-) of the Act in respect of expenditure of Rs.13,10,97,715/- incurred by the Appellant. 8.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject

Cummins India Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 632/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80J

compute its total income and tax liability accordingly. ITA Nos.632/PUN/ 2022 & ITA No. 1256/PUN/ 2023 (Cummins India Limited) 8. Non granting of weighted deduction u/s. 35(AB) of the Act on expenditure of INR 13,10,97,715 incurred by the Appellant 8.1 The Ld. AO/Hon'ble DRP has erred ... granting weighted deduction of 200% u/s. 35(248) (ie. Rs. 26,21,95,429/-) of the Act in respect of expenditure of Rs. 13,10,97,715/- incurred by the Appellant. 8.2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing

Matrix Clothing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT-CC-18, Delhi

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

ITA 3805/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

submitted by the prescribed authority to the Director General (Income tax Exemptions) in Form No. 3CL, in order to entitle the assessee to weighted deduction and such report by the prescribed authority would be forwarded to Director General (Income tax Exemptions) within 60 days from order of approval. This order

Matrix Clothing Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, Delhi

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

ITA 760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Cosmos Engitech Private Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

that the Society had misused the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) by providing accommodation entries to donors to enable them to claim false weighted deductions. The withdrawal of approval was therefore substantive and not on technical grounds. In view of these facts, the donation made by the assessee ... that the Society had misused the provisions of Section 35(1)(ii) by providing accommodation entries to donors to enable them to claim false weighted deductions. This is a fresh information received by the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment; therefore, the reopening of the assessment is good

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Taylormade Renewables Limited, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 35(1)(ii)

vs.Taylormade Renewables Ltd. Page 4 of 10 on the basis of forged documents. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly rejected the claim for weighted deduction as made by the assessee under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR further submitted that the CBDT had issued ... which had expired on 31.03.2006. The CBDT has directed the field formation to examine the irregular claim of weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) in respect of the donations made to this Institute. In view of this fact, the Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee

Nitta Gelatin India Limited, Kochi vs. Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

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

approval of the facility, such question will have to be referred by the Board to the prescribed authority. He thus, stressed that for claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, it is the facility and not the expenditure in form No. 3CL which has to 5 Nitta ... quantifying the expenditure incurred on in-house R & D facility by the company during the previous year and eligible for weighted deduction under sub-section 2AB of section 35 of the Act in part B of form No. 3CL. In other words the quantification of expenditure has been prescribed vide

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

deduction claimed under section 35(1) of the Act.” During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 43,75,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on account of a donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- made to Matrivani Institute ... time of donation, duly approved under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the Central Government. The assessee accordingly claimed the weighted deduction of 175% as permissible under the law. The Counsel pointed out that the donation was made in July 2015 when the said institution’s approval under

Chembond Material Technologies Limited (Formerly Know As Chembond Chemicals Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5229/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren P TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR DR)

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

record. The Ld.AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the addition of Rs.45,55,004/- disallowance of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act. The said addition was challenged before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the said addition. Finally, the matter

Neo Seeds India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1426/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 282Section 35Section 37(1)

Rs.32,58,747 by disallowing the claim of revenue expenditure spend on research and development, which amount was not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. 3. The, authorities below failed to appreciate that the Appellant has incurred the above expenditure towards research and development

Pharmanza Herbal Private Limited, Dharmaj vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vaodara

ITA 749/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

amended w.e.f. 01.07.2016, the prescribed authority (the Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research - DSIR) is required to quantify the expenditure eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) in Part B of Form 3CL. Upon perusal of Form 3CL issued by DSIR in the assessee’s case ... cent from 01.04.2018. The ITAT held that provisions of section 35(2AB) read with Rule 6 clearly mandate filing of Form 3CL and limit weighted deduction to 150 per cent of eligible expenditure incurred on in-house research and development from assessment year 2018-19 onwards. Therefore, since Assessing Officer

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 5. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in disallowing weighted deduction of Rs.249,57,70,000/- claimed by the appellant under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of R&D expenditure of Rohtak Unit ... Form 3CL. He submitted that the approval / non-approval of expenses by DSIR in Form 3CL has no relevance for the purposes of claiming weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. In this regard, he placed on the following decisions wherein it has been held that Form

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Malwa Oxygen and Industrial Gases Private Limited, Sector C, Industrial Area vs. AO-Ratlam/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Ratlam/Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

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

facts apropos to Ground No. 3 & 4 are such that during scrutiny proceeding, the AO found that the assessee had claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 78,72,495/- u/s 35(2AB) on account of expenditure incurred for ‘scientific research’. The deduction of Rs. 78,42,495/- was claimed ... department by promptly depositing the due taxes on being acknowledged.” 5. Thus, through above letter, the assessee consented before AO to disallow the weighted deduction of Rs. 78,72,495/- claimed u/s 35(2AB) but simultaneously requested the AO to grant alternative claim of 100% deduction of revenue expenditure

Amber Enterprises India Limited, Rajpura, Punjab vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,96,88,965/- under section 35(1)(i) and weighted deduction of Rs. 29,30,17,001/- under section 35(2AB) on in- house R&D expenditure of Rs.19,53,44,667/-. In this connection ... along with supporting evidences, approval of DSIR, copy of Form 3CM, audit report, details of in- house R&D facilities and justification for weighted deduction. In response, the assessee submitted detailed explanations on 04.03.2022, enclosing the DSIR recognition in Form 3CM valid for the relevant period, copies of audited

Anuh Pharma Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -5, Mumbai

ITA 2911/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

that the case was selected for scrutiny on various grounds inter-alia (i) for verification of certain relief or losses; (ii) stock valuation; (iii) weighted deduction for expenditure on scientific research; and (iv) deduction in respect of industrial undertaking u/s 80IA of the Act. He submitted that in the assessment ... stock valuation, the Assessing Officer accepted the submission of the assessee and noted that no adverse interference had been drawn. On the issue of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for in-house research and development, the Assessing Officer after considering submission of the assessee allowed the weighted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Anand Nvh Products Pvt Ltd, Delhi

ITA 3612/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 35

approval is granted by DSIR during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the entire expenditure incurred u/s 35 (2AB) of the Act. I have gone through the facts of the case and case laws cited

DCIT Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Air India vs. Aarti Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4869/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawaldy. Cit, Central Circle-3(2) Aarti Industries Limited R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, 71, Udyog Kshetra, 2Nd Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Mumbai-400 021 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aabca 2787 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue, Against The Order Dated 30.10.2023 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. 2. Ground No. 1 In The Appeal Reads As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowances Made By The A.O. To Restrict The Deduction U/S. 80Ia Of The Act Despite The Fact That The Issue Has Not Attained Finality & Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Supreme Court? – Rs.396,81,798/- 3. Briefly The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity Engaged In Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Fertilizers & Intermediaries. For Such Manufacturing Activity, The Assessee Has Set Up A Plant At Plot No. 801/23, Gidc, Phase-Iii

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 133(6)Section 80I

Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. noticed that in the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act for an amount of Rs.26,69,58,914/- comprising both revenue and capital expenditure. He observed, though the assessee ... furnish Form 3CL, containing approval by Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (‘DSIR’ for short), however, they were not furnished. Accordingly, he disallowed the weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act at double the amount of expenditure actually incurred. However, he allowed the expenditure incurred in toto