“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

Brightech Valves & Controls Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 52/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

finding of error in the assessment order, for exercising revisionary jurisdiction, is with respect to wrong allowance by AO of assesses claim to weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act on donation made to an Institute, i.e. M/s. Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust ... counsel for the assessee are that since the documents fairly exhibited the genuineness and the eligibility of the claim of the assessee to weighted deduction u/s.35(1)(ii) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had committed no error allowing the said claim to the assessee. The case of the assessee

Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Private Limited, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee lacks merit and is

ITA 551/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.551/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Private Limited Village : Garadhiya Jarod Samlaya Road Vadodara – 391 520 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacg 8433 G Ther Pr.Cit, Vadodara-1, Vadodara-390 007 V/S. अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr & Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit"], Dated 29.02.2024, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018–19, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 12.04.2021 Passed By National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Assessing Officer) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR &

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

learned Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the revisionary order passed by the PCIT and submitted that the AO had allowed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act without verifying the mandatory Form 3CL, and had allowed deduction @200% despite the amendment restricting the claim ... amendment by Finance Act, 2016 and Finance Act, 2018, the ITA No.551/Ahd/2024 Gujarat Metal Cast Industries Pvt.Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Asst. Year: 2018-19 5 weighted deduction permissible under section 35(2AB) of the Act stood reduced to 150% of the eligible expenditure with effect from 01.04.2018. 8. 2. From

Grp Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 4525/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: him was not adjudicated though details of the said expenditure were also provided.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Appellant/Assessee submitted that the Appellant/Assessee has filed application under the ‘The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024′ opting for settlement and has received the Certificate in Form 2 [Acknowledgement Number 898854431110325]. In view of the aforesaid, as requested by the Appellant/Assessee, the the pres

For Appellant: Shri Apurva R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 37(1)

nonetheless an expense incurred for the running business of the appellant even if not entitled to a weighted deduction. This plea was raised before him was not adjudicated though details of the said expenditure were also provided.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorised Representative

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

basis for the disallowance of the ESOP expenses under section 37(1) of the Act. Ground 3: Disallowance of Rs.10,90,49,268 weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act 3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the weighted deduction under Section ... allowable for this year also. 7.7 The assessee's appeal on this ground is allowed. 8. Ground No. 3 Claim of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Rs. 10,90,49,268/- 8.1 During the year, the assessee claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 43,78,54,513/- as revenue and Rs.1

Godrej Agrovet Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 2223/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailgodrej Agrovet Limited, C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort Mumbai, Mumbai – 400079 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan – Aaacg0617Q V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -6, Room No.51, 5Th Floor, ……………. Respondent Aaykar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Maharashtra Assessee By : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Adv. Shri Jeet Kamdar, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit - Dr

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 32Section 35C

Appellant in the preceding Assessment Year 2016-17. 7. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 to deny the weighted deduction u/s.35CCC.” 3. In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved against the invocation of revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act by the learned ... under section 35CCC of the Act, the learned PCIT held that the AO overlooked the aspect that the assessee gave up its claim for weighted deduction and requested the AO to restrict the deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred on agriculture extension activity to the actual expenditure incurred. Accordingly

M/S. Indo National Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp Cricle -2(2). Chennai, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1405/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

therefore, it doesn’t require any adjudication. therefore, it doesn’t require any adjudication. Ground No.2 is regarding Ground No.2 is regarding disallowance of weighted deduction disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs.19,78,33/- claimed u/s 35(2AB) claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act since expenditure since expenditure ... claimed an amount of Rs.19,78,332/ assessee has claimed an amount of Rs.19,78,332/- by way of weighted by way of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. According to the AO, as per section deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. According

M/S. Indo National Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Coprate Cricle-2(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1404/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 35

Genus Power Infrastructures Limitted, Noida vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Centeral), Lucknow

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Ashvin Parsottambhai Sardhara, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 68/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.68/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ashvin Parsottambhai Vs. The Assistant Sardhara, Commissioner Of B-27, Sudarshan Tower, Income Tax, Opp. Sun-N-Step Club, Circle-4(1)(1), Sal Hospital Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan No.Bdjps2083Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D K Parikh, Ar Respondent By: Adjournment Application Filed Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application filed

Section 35(1)(ii)

only effective issued raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of the weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for Rs.17,50,000/- 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed deduction ... allegedly providing accommodation entries to the donors in the name of research activities and which enabled the donors to claim a false weighted deduction under the Act. As the said notification was rescinded w.e.f. 01.04.2011, the AO held that the appellant was not eligible for claiming of deduction of Rs.17

Sedemac Mechatronics Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 5484/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 270ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Grounds raised by the assessee for the AY.2018-19 reads as under: “Disallowance of weighted deduction amounting to INR 21,24,07,277 claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 1. erred in disallowing the weighted deduction amounting ... once the R&D facility is approved, entire expenditure incurred by the unit on scientific research is eligible for weighted deduction. 2. erred in disallowing the entire R&D expenses incurred by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the delay in issuance of Form 3CL by DSIR

Sedemac Mechatronics Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 5483/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 270ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are

ITA 6041/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 14ASection 35

Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, the A.O., while examining assessee’s claim of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act, noticed that the quantum of deduction claimed by the assessee is more than the expenditure certified by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR ... case in A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2014-15, the Tribunal has taken a consistent view that the assessee is entitled to avail the weighted deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred on Scientific Research irrespective of the quantum mentioned in the certificate issued by DSIR. Factual position being identical

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are

ITA 6040/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 14ASection 35

Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are

ITA 5566/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 14ASection 35

Greaves Cotton Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed and Revenue’s appeals are

ITA 5565/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh

Section 14ASection 35

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

disallowance of 100% revenue expenditure incurred for scientific research though not approved by the DSIR amounting to Rs.15,79,54,772/- for a weighted deduction, the DRP noted that the DSIR vide Form 3CL dated 16.08.2022 granted approval for Rs.1,25,56,14,290/- in relation to revenue expenditure including ... ITA.No.853/Hyd./2024 business purposes. The Id. AO/DRP ought to have limited the disallowance u/s 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent of weighted deduction of 50% of the revenue expenditure ie Rs.7,89,77,386 in as much as the Appellant is otherwise entitled to claim

Aurobindo Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 172/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.172/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Aurobindo Pharma Ltd Vs. Acit Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aabca7366H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri B.G. Reddy, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M Narmada, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri B.G. Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. M Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 92C

export transactions but also to imports which are used in both domestic and export sales. Non-Transfer Pricing Grounds: A. On disallowance of weighted deduction U/s 35(2AB): 1. The Learned DRP/Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing weighted deduction under ... circumstances of the case in not appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble Hyderabad ITAT, in the assessee's own case allowed the weighted deduction on Clinical Trial/Bio- Analytical/ Bio-Equivalence expenditure for the AY 2011- 12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15. 4. The Learned DRP/AO

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1330/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

consequently not eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act 3. The Ld. AO and Ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing the weighted deduction of Rs.13,46,18,011/- claimed u/s 35(2AB) for the reason of non-issuance of Form 3CL by DSIR authority. 3.1 Without prejudice ... Without prejudice to above, the assessee prays allowance of research and development expenses u/s 35(1) in respect of amount not considered for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) by DSIR in form 3CL. 4. The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought not to have taxed Rs.52

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1158/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

consequently not eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Act 3. The Ld. AO and Ld CIT(A) erred in not allowing the weighted deduction of Rs. 13,46,18,011/ claimed u/s 35(2AB) for the reason of non-issuance of Form 3CL by DSIR authority. 3.1 Without ... Without prejudice to above, the assessee prays allowance of research and development expenses u/s 35(1) in respect of amount not considered for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) by DSIR in form 3CL. 4. The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought not to have taxed Rs.52

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.7 11. Ground No. 7 raised by the Assessee, which pertains to allowability of weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act, reads as under: “7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for expenditure incurred on research and development for the period from 1 April 2004 to 21 September 2004”. 11. 1. During the relevant previous year the Assessee had incurred