“Section 35(1)(iv)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(iv) is Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (177 ITR 377), cited in 275 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(iv)

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT

177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court

275

citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT

91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

21 Taxmann.com 483 · 2012 · ITAT

citing judgments

When computing profits of an eligible unit for tax incentives, profits attributable to marketing and R&D activities carried out outside the eligible unit should not be demarcated or excluded. The re-computation of deductions under tax holiday sections is justified only when there is an arrangement to earn more than ordinary profits.

CIT v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

29 Taxmann.com 405 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred on an independent research centre and R&D unit is eligible for deduction under Section 35(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, and such expenditure need not be reduced from profits.

CIT v. Gokal Das Images Private Limited

429 ITR 526 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added back when computing book profit under Section 115JB, as Section 115JB is a complete code in itself.

Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT

103 TTJ 329 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

A mere substantial profit does not inherently indicate an arrangement to earn profits beyond ordinary levels to abuse tax concessions under Section 80-IA(9) or (10). The Assessing Officer must provide specific evidence of such an arrangement.

CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd.

328 ITR 338 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The Tribunal has comprehensive jurisdiction to deal with issues in an appeal and can allow a new ground to be raised, assimilating issues from the CIT (Appeals) order.

10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd.

326 ITR 100 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to consider claims for losses under any provision of the Act, even if not initially raised in the return of income, when deciding an appeal. This is due to the Tribunal's plenary powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing Section 35(1)(iv)

Ve Commercial Vehicles Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1100/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

ITA Nos.1100, 1101 & 1411/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

Depreciation allowance under section 32 of the Act 3 Profit on sale of Fixed Asset 4 Capital expenditure on scientific research under section 35(1)(iv) 5 Reversal/Payment of VAT on royalty provision 6 Reversal/utilisation of Provision for Doubtful Debts 7 Amounts allowable in view of provisio under section

M/S. Laxmi Organic Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4782/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 144C(5)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Sud-Chemie India Private Limited, Aluva vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

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

ITA 1019/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri. Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Sri. Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 80G

Counsel for the assessee alternatively argued that the expenses incurred by the assessee deserve to be allowed in terms of the provisions of Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 5. The learned CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions ... assessee is concerned, we restore this matter to the file of the AO for examining afresh in the light of the provisions of Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. 7. In other ground, the assessee has claimed deduction of Section 80G. We also restore this issue to the file

Cooper Corporation Private Limited, Satara vs. National Eassessment Centre, Not Known

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

ITA 212/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Cooper Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Satara Circle, Satara M60-1, Nariman House, Additional Vs. Midc, Vijay Nagar, Gojegaon B.O., Satara – 415004 Pan: Aaacc9687J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishna V Gujarathi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Krishna V GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 35

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 38/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Atul Limited Acit, Cir.1(1)(1) Atul House, Gi Patel Mark Vs Ahmedabad. Mithila Society, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabca 2390 M (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)Section 92C

allowed. Ground No. 3(a) & 3(b): Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) and alternate claim under section 35(1)(iv) 26. During the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2017–18, the assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of expenditure ... weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was not allowed, the expenditure of Rs.1,63,54,602/- be allowed as deduction under section 35(1)(iv) read with section 35(2), which provides for 100% deduction of capital expenditure incurred for scientific research. The DRP, however, upheld the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal f

ITA 2600/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh

Section 2Section 35

facts of the pr assessee in relation thereto. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noted that Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, provides that any case, it is noted that Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, provides that any case, it is noted ... that Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, provides that any expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research, related to the expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research, related to the expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research, related to the business of the assessee shall

Cholayil Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2581/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2581/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Cholayil Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. / Asst. Commissioner No.8, J Block, 6Th Main Road, Vs. Of Income Tax, Anna Nagar East, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai – 600 102. Chennai-1. [Pan: Aaacc 3123B]

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

merits of the case. :- 2 -: 2.1. For that the Ld. JCIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.12,11,894/-under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, by holding that the expenditure relating to the disallowance relates to revenue items. 2.2. For that the Ld. JCIT(A) ought

Sedemac Mechatronics Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 5484/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 270ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

regulations; 3. without prejudice to the above, erred in not allowing 100% of capital expenditure amounting to INR 11,01,98,096 under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act and 100% of revenue expenditure amounting to INR 3,14,06,756 under section 37/35(1

Sedemac Mechatronics Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 5483/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 270ASection 35Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

have appreciated that the amount of Rs.1,30,83,508 being the capital expenditure not approved by DISR is allowable otherwise under section 35(1)(iv), and therefore disallowance should have been restricted to Rs.65,41,754. 20 ITA.No.853/Hyd./2024 4. The Id. AO/DRP failed to appreciate the alternate

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

evidence was provided by the assessee in relation thereto. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is noted that Section 35(1)(iv) of the Act, provides that any expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research, related to the business of the assessee shall be admissible ... therefore, an assessee is entitled for normal deduction i.e. 100% of the capital expenditure incurred at its R&D facility in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital expenditure is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

DCIT Circle 8, Pune vs. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

year. The proviso provides for not allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost ... year”. The proviso provides for not allowing deduction in respect of expenditure incurred on acquisition of any land. On a conjoint reading of section 35(1) (iv) read with section 35(2), it is manifested that any expenditure of capital nature incurred on scientific research, other than the cost