, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.713/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Malwa Oxygen & Industrial ITO, NFAC, Gases Private Ltd., Delhi Sector -C, /

बनाम Industrial Area, Vs.

Ratlam (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AACCM4635N Assessee by Shri Pankaj Shah & Soumya Bomb, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 29.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.04.2021 passed by learned National e-assessment Centre [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in making disallowance of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs. 78,72,495. The Appellant prays that the said disallowance be directed to be deleted.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act amounting to Rs. 78,72,495 merely for non-furnishing of Form 3CL. He failed to appreciate and ought to have held that the requirement is mere directory and procedural in nature. The Appellant prays that the said disallowance of deduction undersection 35(2AB) be directed to be deleted.

3. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the normal deduction of such expenses under section 35(1) and 37(1) of the Act in respect of revenue expenditure incurred amounting to Rs. 24,79,955/-. The Appellantprays thatdeduction ofexpenses be directed to be allowed.

4. Without prejudice to Ground 1 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the capitalisation of disallowed capital expenditure claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the disallowed capital Research and development expenses be capitalised and consequent depreciation be directed to be allowed.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the consequent deductions and allowances permissible under the Act and assessing the correct income in law. The Appellant prays that the deductions and allowances allowable under law be directed to be allowed.

6.The Appellantcraves leave to add, amend any orallgrounds atthe time of hearing.”

2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing intermediates and speciality chemicals. For AY 2018-19, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 16,63,99,350/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny-assessment and the AO passed assessment-order u/s 143(3) assessing total income at Rs. 17,42,71,840/- after making certain adjustments. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded partly. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in next appeal before us.

3. The assessee has raised as many as 6 grounds in Form No. 36 as noted above. But during hearing, Ld. AR for assessee confined his pleadings to the grievances of assessee raised in Ground No. 3 & 4 only. Accordingly, in the discussions to follow, we adjudicate those grounds. Rest of the grounds are dismissed as non-pressed/non-pleaded.

4. The 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 R