← All Phrases

“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
73
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
46
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
40
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
34
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
27
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
27
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
20
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)

Dy CIT 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Navin Flourine International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6814/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6814/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-10(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Navin Flourine Room No. 217/212, 1St International Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Suntech Centre, Near Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Churchgate, Mumbai- Garware Plastics, 37/40, 400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E)], Mumbai-400057. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp0464B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Ms. Aastha Shah/Aamod Prabhudesai सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 17, Mumbai Dated 20.08.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Given Relief To The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ao Who Passed The Re-Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). According To The Ld. Ar, The Ao Passed The Re-Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 Pursuant To The Order Of The Ld. Cit-07, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 24.01.2014 Wherein The Ld. Cit Found Fault With The Action Of The Ao In Respect Of Original Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 29.12.2011 Wherein The Ao A.Y. 2009-10 M/S. Navin Flourine International Ltd. Assessed The Total Income Of Assessee At Rs.71,09,93,779/-. The Ld Cit U/S 263 Of The Act Found Fault With The Original Assessment On The Following Four (4) Issues: -

For Appellant: Ms. Aastha Shah/Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM