← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)98 judgments

COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

erred in not allowing the 100% revenue expense as per section 37 of the Act and 100% of capital expense as per section 35(1)(iv) of the Act.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2719/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nasavarak Jore,atj, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)

observing as follows:- “In ground No.3, regarding the disallowance of capital expenditure related to scientific research amounting to Rs.3,72,88,916 under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, the appellant highlighted that the company had commenced its business activities, including the identification of land, construction of the factory ... incurring expenses related to research and development, salaries, and financial costs. The appellant asserted that these expenses, claimed under Section 35(1)(iv) for scientific research, were legitimate and supported by documentary evidence such as invoices, bank statements, and the DSIR registration certificate. The appellant also referenced the decision

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

DABUR INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3085/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dabur India Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 7 (1), 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaacd0474C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chandan Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Order : 10.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A), Kochi [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 17.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Appeal Filed Against Order Passed U/S 143(1) Is Infructuous As The Order Is Merged With The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(3) R.W.S 144B. 2. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Chandan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH

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)

circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,90,35,000/- made under section 35(1)(iv). 3. Any other grounds that may be arisen during the hearing. 6. Issue No 1- Deduction u/s.10AA of the Income ... result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.2631/Chny/2024 is dismissed. 7. Issue No 2- Disallowance of Scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) 7.1 Moving on to Ground No.2 in ITA No.2632/Chny/2024, the same is in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(1)(iv

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)

circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,90,35,000/- made under section 35(1)(iv). 3. Any other grounds that may be arisen during the hearing. 6. Issue No 1- Deduction u/s.10AA of the Income ... result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.2631/Chny/2024 is dismissed. 7. Issue No 2- Disallowance of Scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) 7.1 Moving on to Ground No.2 in ITA No.2632/Chny/2024, the same is in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(1)(iv

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)

circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.8,90,35,000/- made under section 35(1)(iv). 3. Any other grounds that may be arisen during the hearing. 6. Issue No 1- Deduction u/s.10AA of the Income ... result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No.2631/Chny/2024 is dismissed. 7. Issue No 2- Disallowance of Scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) 7.1 Moving on to Ground No.2 in ITA No.2632/Chny/2024, the same is in respect of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s.35(1)(iv

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

n5.2 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not\nallowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant.\n6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

n5.2 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not\nallowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant.\n6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 366/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT, SURAT vs. SAHAJANAND MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas CO of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 364/SRT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kammble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.364 & 366/Srt/2025 Ays: (2020-21 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Central Circle – 4, Limited, Surat 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No.11/Srt/2025 (Ay 2018-19) [Arising Out Of Ita No.366/Srt/2025] Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Dcit, Limited, Central Circle – 4, 221, C-Wing, Kanakia Atrium Andheri Surat Kurla Road, Jb Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs7694L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 506/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1663/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1661/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80I

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nPUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI vs. VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1411/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.1100, 1101 & 1411/Del/2023\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI \"I\" BENCH: NEW DELHI\n\nBEFORE

VE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1101/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos.1100, 1101 & 1411/Del/2023\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI \"I\" BENCH: NEW DELHI\n\nBEFORE

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5