Held that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly appreciated the fact and found the capital items were used in the research facility only and that the impugned capital expenditure was approved by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as evidenced by the certificate issued by it in form 3CL. When the specified authority itself had approved the incurrence of the capital expenditure for the purpose of in-house research, there was no question of the Assessing Officer doubting it or arriving at a finding that the capital expenditure was not incurred in the assessee’s research and development facility. Order of CIT(A) is affirmed (AY. 2008-09, 2009-10)
Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2024)115 ITR 428 / 162 taxmann.com 229 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 35 : Expenditure on scientific research-Purchase of capital equipment for research facility-Clinical trial expenditure allowed by Tribunal in earlier years which is up held by High Court-Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed-Central Board Of Direct Taxes Circular No. 14(Xl-35), Dated 11-4-1955. [S.35(2AB)]