Pharmanza Herbal (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 215 ITD 273 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263: Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Expenditure on scientific research-DSIR’s quantification of eligible R&D expenditure in Form 3CL was mandatory-Failure to quantify the deduction-assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. [S. 35(2AB),143(3), R.6(7A)]

Held that post Finance Act, 2015 amendment and corresponding Rule 6(7A) change, DSIR’s quantification of eligible R&D expenditure in Form 3CL was mandatory for claiming deduction under section 35(2AB). The  Assessing Officer was duty-bound to restrict deduction to the extent of expenditure approved and quantified by DSIR, and failure to do so would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. (AY. 2018-19)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*