Tube Investments of India v. CIT

260 ITR 94High Court#17511 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14ASection 80JJAASection 10AASection 115BBDSection 35(1)(iv)Section 80IA(10)Section 80IA(8)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

scientific research expendituresection 115bbdnew employeessection 35(1)(iv)section 80ia(8)section 35(1)captive service providersection 80jjasection 80jjaasection 35(2ab)strategic investmentsection 14a(2)

Judgments citing Tube Investments of India v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8 1 (INCHARGE), HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2632/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

…eleted the disallowance concluding that there was no mandatory requirement for obtaining any approval under section 35(1)(iv) unlike section 35(2AB). The ld.CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Tube Investments of India vs CIT [260 ITR 94] concluded that mere fact of a claim not having been found admissible u/s.35(2AB) will not constitute a bar to allowance of expenditure u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act if that expenditure is capital expenditure and is incurred in the R&D units. 7.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and documen…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD vs. VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2631/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

…eleted the disallowance concluding that there was no mandatory requirement for obtaining any approval under section 35(1)(iv) unlike section 35(2AB). The ld.CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Tube Investments of India vs CIT [260 ITR 94] concluded that mere fact of a claim not having been found admissible u/s.35(2AB) will not constitute a bar to allowance of expenditure u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act if that expenditure is capital expenditure and is incurred in the R&D units. 7.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and documen…

VIRTUSA CONSULTING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal in Ground No 2-4 in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2262/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathait (Tp) A No.:42/Chny/2024 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2262/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T
Section 10ASection 35(1)(iv)

…eleted the disallowance concluding that there was no mandatory requirement for obtaining any approval under section 35(1)(iv) unlike section 35(2AB). The ld.CIT(A) relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in Tube Investments of India vs CIT [260 ITR 94] concluded that mere fact of a claim not having been found admissible u/s.35(2AB) will not constitute a bar to allowance of expenditure u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act if that expenditure is capital expenditure and is incurred in the R&D units. 7.5 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and documen…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

…35(2AB). This would not mean that the other expenditure incurred by the assessee in the approved R&D facility cannot be entertained for deduction and other provisions of Section 35. The Madras High Court in the case of Tube investments of India limited v CIT (260 ITR 94), has held that the fact that an Assessee was not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35, IT(TP)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 & Carborundum Universal Ltd. :- 15 -: will not bar the same Expenditure being allowable u/s 35(1)(iv). Similar view has been taken by the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Parabolic Drugs Ltd (141 TTJ 0662 Del).…

EMBIO LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal for Ay 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhembio Limited Acit-15(1)(2), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Embio Limited Acit-15(1)(1), 501, 5Th Floor, Sentinel, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Garden, Mumbai-400020. Powai, Vs. Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aaace1154C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 254(1)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 37(1)Section 72ASection 72A(2)(iii)

…tled for deduction under section 37(1) of the Act as expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. In support of his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of (i) Tube Investments of India Ltd. vs. CIT 260 ITR 94 (Madras HC) (ii) CIT vs. Yamuna Digital Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 238 ITR 717 (AP HC) (ii) ACIT vs. Parabolic Drugs Ltd. 141 TTJ 662 (Del. ITAT) & (iv) JCIT vs. ITC 112 ITD 57 (Hyd ITAT). 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. DR further submits that the claim of assessee was not approved…

Tube Investments of India v. CIT (260 ITR 94) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax