SHRI SANT DAMAJI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SOLAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SOLAPUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that as per the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., if the assessee follows the mercantile system of accounting, a provision made for contribution to a research institute is to be considered as paid and allowed as a deduction.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for a provision made towards VSI contribution. The Assessing Officer disallowed it, stating the amount was not actually paid. The assessee argued that following the mercantile system of accounting, a provision should be considered as paid.
What were the issues?
Whether a provision for contribution to a research institute, under the mercantile system of accounting, qualifies for deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 35(1)(ii),Section 43(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income of Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] dated 15.03.2023 emanating from Assessing Officer’s order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2016 for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal as under :
1. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in disallowing
Shri Sant Damaji Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., [A] and adding back an amount of Rs.5,76,450/- on account of VSI Contribution.
The appellant craves for the leave, add, alter, amend, modify and delete any or all the above grounds of appeals before or at the time of hearing.”
2. The Ground No.1 is related to amount of Rs.5,76,450/- contributed to VSI i.e. Vasandada Sugar Institute. The said amount was not actually paid, but there was only provision. The ld.AO held that under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, the amount has to be actually paid. The ld.AR submitted that the said issue is also covered by the ITAT Pune Bench’s decision.
The fact in case is that the amount was not actually paid, but there was only provision. The relevant section 35(1)(ii) is reproduced here asunder: “35. (1) In respect of expenditure on scientific research, the following deductions shall be allowed— (ii) an amount equal to one and three-fourth times of any sum paid to a research association which has as its object the undertaking of scientific research or to a university, college or other institution to be used for scientific research : Provided that such association, university, college or other institution for the purposes of this clause— (A) is for the time being approved, in accordance with the guidelines, in the manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed; and Shri Sant Damaji Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., [A]
(B) such association, university, college or other institution is specified as such, by notification in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government;”
3.1 It is observed that as per the above section, amount has to be actually paid. However, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that there was only provision.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the decision of CIT Vs. Jai Ambika Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Tax Appeal No.17 of 2008 whereas the question of law on which the admission of the appeal is sought, held as under: “Question: Whether the amount paid/provided in the books of account by the Assessee for contribution to Vasant dada Sugar Institute, a recognized research institute, can be allowed as deduction under section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the amount has only been provided in the accounts but has not actually been paid in the relevant Assessment Year?
The definition of the word "Paid" contained in section 43(2) of the Act takes into account not only the amount which is actually paid by the assessee to a research institute but also takes into account the liability incurred and provided in the books of account in case mercantile system of accounting is followed. Consequently, the amount which has been provided for as a liability to be paid to a scientific research institute by the assessee is to be allowed as a deduction under section 35 of i.t.act in a case where the assessee maintains its accounts on mercantile basis.
Shri Sant Damaji Sahakar Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., [A]
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee maintains the accounts on a mercantile basis. Hence, even a book entry made by the assessee in its books of accounts as a liability for making contribution to VSI, a Research Institute, would be covered by section 35(1)(ii) of the I.T. Act. In our view, the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the I.T.Act.”
There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.” 5. Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the expenditure is allowed to the assessee, therefore, the Ground No.1raised by the assessee is allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th June, 2023.
More judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)
- ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs Zeenat Shafique Jagani, MumbaiITA 3721/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- High Volt Electricals Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, PalgharITA 3049/MUM/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-2017
- Vijay Transtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs ACIT Circle-11(3)(2), MumbaiITA 2644/MUM/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-2017
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Torrent Power Limited, AhmedabadITA 1117/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Torrent Power Limited, AhmedabadITA 1076/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026