Weighted deduction for in-house R&D turns on approved premises, patent filing eligibility, and revenue treatment of regulatory costs.

Weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was denied for clinical trial expenditure conducted outside the approved in-house research facility and for items not supported by the DSIR certificate. Rent, rates and taxes relating to approved R&D premises were treated as eligible, because the statutory exclusion is confined to the cost of land or building. Consultancy charges linked to technical research inputs, and patent filing charges covered by the Explanation to section 35(2AB), were also held eligible. Expenditure on ANDA registration in the USA was characterised as revenue expenditure, being incurred to meet regulatory requirements for market access and not to acquire any enduring asset.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allowable on expenditure incurred on clinical trials and on items not reported in the DSIR certificate, (ii) whether rent, rates and taxes relating to the approved R&D premises were excluded from weighted deduction, (iii) whether consultancy charges and patent filing charges were eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), and (iv) whether expenditure incurred for ANDA registration in the USA was revenue expenditure.

Issue (i): Whether weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allowable on expenditure incurred on clinical trials and on items not reported in the DSIR certificate.

Analysis: The claim for clinical trial expenditure was examined in the light of earlier orders in the assessee's own case. The expenditure was held to be attributable to in-house research only if incurred within the approved research facility, and the Tribunal followed its earlier view that clinical trial expenditure conducted outside the approved premises did not qualify for the higher weighted deduction. As to the amount not reported in the DSIR certificate, no sufficient material was placed to show that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in denying the higher deduction.

Conclusion: The claim was rejected and weighted deduction was denied on these items.

Issue (ii): Whether rent, rates and taxes relating to the approved R&D premises were excluded from weighted deduction.

Analysis: Section 35(2AB) excludes only expenditure in the nature of cost of land or building. Charges such as rent, rates, taxes and repairs connected with the R&D premises are not themselves cost of land or building. In the absence of any material showing that the expenditure was outside the R&D premises or otherwise ineligible, the higher deduction could not be denied merely because DSIR had not separately approved the item.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to weighted deduction on rent, rates and taxes connected with the R&D premises.

Issue (iii): Whether consultancy charges and patent filing charges were eligible for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB).

Analysis: The consultancy charges were found to relate to research inputs such as technical services, patent information and innovator samples, and not to patent registration itself. Patent filing expenditure for drugs and pharmaceuticals was covered by the Explanation to section 35(2AB), which includes filing of an application for a patent under the Patents Act, 1970. The filing of foreign patent applications through the statutory route was therefore treated as part of eligible scientific research expenditure.

Conclusion: The consultancy charges and patent filing charges were held eligible for weighted deduction, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Issue (iv): Whether expenditure incurred for ANDA registration in the USA was revenue expenditure.

Analysis: ANDA registration was treated as a regulatory requirement for marketing the product in the USA and not as acquisition of any enduring asset or intellectual property right. The expenditure was incurred to facilitate business operations and did not create an advantage of enduring nature.

Conclusion: The expenditure was held to be revenue in nature and allowable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the claims relating to rent, rates and taxes, consultancy charges, patent filing charges and ANDA registration expenditure, while the claims relating to clinical trials and the amount not reported in the DSIR certificate were rejected, resulting in partial relief to the assessee and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For weighted deduction under section 35(2AB), only the cost of land or building is excluded expressly, while revenue outgoings connected with approved in-house R&D, and patent filing expenditure covered by the statutory Explanation, may qualify if otherwise established as research-related.

---