IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 3971 and 3991/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 and 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Income Tax, Limited Circle-3(4), B/2, Mahalaxmi Chambers, Mumbai Vs. 22 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mahalaxmi, Cumballa Hill S.O Mumbai - 400026 (PAN: AAACG2207L)

(Appellant) ( R e spondent)

Present for:

Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, CA Revenue : Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2025 and 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.03.2026

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the Revenue are against the orders of ld. CIT (A) 56, Mumbai, vide order nos. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074651858(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074654300(1), dated 18.03.2025, passed against the assessment orders by DCIT/ACIT (LTU)-2, Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 15.01.2019 and 05.07.2019 for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively.

2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

ITA No. 3971/Mum/2025

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment of deleting the addition of Rs.3,29,72,122/- to the income of the assessee company made by the Transfer Pricing Officer on account of export of pharmaceutical products to Glenmark Nigeria and to Glenmark Czech?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the adjustment of deleting the addition of Rs.3,29,72,122/- to the income of the assessee company made by the Transfer Pricing Officer by disregarding the benchmarking analysis carried out by the TPO as per stipulated provisions of the Income-tax Act and Rules?

(Tax Effect (1 & 2): Rs.1, 10, 22, 255)

3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act without appreciating that the liabilities were time-barred, unconfirmed, and without any evidence of enforceability or Continued existence

4. "Whether. on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in allowing the appeal of the assessee and thereby deleting the addition made on account of sundry credit balances written back, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs TVS Iyengar & Sons Ltd (222 ITR 344( (SC) which is applicable to the assessee's case.

(Tax Effect (3&4): Rs.1,85, 595)

5. "Whether. on the facts and in the c1rcumstances of the case and in law. the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that DSIR has not approved the expenditure for clinical trials and BA/BE studies incurred outside R&D centre.

6. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) Was erred in allowing assessee's claim w/s 35(2AB) despite the fact that, (a) the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. V. ACIT, Circle 2(2) Hyderabad (2012] 28 taxmann.com 280 (Hyd.) has held that "the expenditure as approved by the DSIR in the certificate given by them in form 3GL alone o be granted weighted deduction b) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tejas Networks Limited v. DCIT (Writ Petition No 7004/2014 ) held that for the purposes of claims made under section 35(2AB), the decision of DSIR, being the authority under section 35(2AB) read with rule 6(7A), would be Tinal, and that DSIR alone is competent to take decision with regards to the correctness of expenditure u/s 35(2AB) of the Act r.w.r. 6(7A) of the Rules.

7. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing assessee's methodology of computation of expenditure eligible for deduction u/s 35(2AB), whereas such method is based on the gross cost, and Ao has rightly comput