DCIT, MUMBAI V. LUPIN LIMITED, MUMBAI

MA 161/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai, which had allowed certain expenditures under section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in its decision as the issue was still pending with the CIT(A) for the same assessment year. The Tribunal, however, upheld its previous decision, referencing a similar case from AY 2013-14, where the expenditures were allowed. The Tribunal found no need to rectify its earlier order as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714757 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIR ANNAVARAN KOSURI; DR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAN VORA; AR
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" | आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ा यपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 161/Mum/2024 I.T.A. No. 4325/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Mumbai Vs Lupin Limited, Mumbai 3rd Floor, Kalptaru Inspire Off Western Express Highway Santacruz (East) Mumbai -400055 [PAN: AAACL1069K] अपीला थ\u0016/ (Appellant) \u0017\u0018 यथ\u0016/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora, A/R Revenue by : Shir Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This miscellaneous application by the revenue is directed towards the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4325/Mum/2024 pertaining to AY 2014-15 dated 08/10/2024. 2. The sum and substance of the present miscellaneous application reads as under:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in allowing expenditure u/s. 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act in appeal filed against the order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is most respectfully submitted that Hon'ble ITAT has relied upon its order for AY 2013-14 and held that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute. Kind attention of Hon'ble /TAT is drawn to the AY 2014-15 for which the assessee's appeal against the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act on the same issue is still pending with CIT(A). therefore the reliance placed by the Hon'ble /TAT that the allowability of the expenditure is not in dispute is not factually correct and hence, it is respectfully submitted that the same may be rectified.” Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 161/Mum/2024 2 3. We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal. While deciding the quarrel, the Tribunal held as under:- “5. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that in AY 2013-14, on identical set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1241 to 1242/Mum/2024 vide order dt. 18/03/2024, relying on assessee’s own case for earlier years allowed the deduction of R&D expenses not approved by DSIR in Form 3CL holding that the Form 3CL did not have any legal sanctity and it is only w.e.f 01/04/2016 with the amendment to Rule 6(7A)(b) of the Rules, that the quantification of the weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) of the Act has significance. ************** *********** *********** *************** 6. The nature of expenses in the year under consideration are exactly like those incurred in AY 2013-14 and since the allowability of the expenditure are not in dispute, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).” 4. From the above it is clear that the Tribunal has followed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, considering the substance of the miscellaneous application mentioned hereinabove elsewhere, we do not find any rectifiable error in the order of the Tribunal which needs rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 8th August, 2025 at Mumbai. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 08/08/2025 * * * *SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 161/Mum/2024 3 आदेश की \u0014ितिलिप अ\u0019ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u001b / The Appellant 2. \u0014 थ\u001b / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु! / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु! ) अपील ( / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय \u0014ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड% फाई/ Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "