← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(1)253 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

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1 ... that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under se the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. ction 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1 ... that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under se the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. ction 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

nthe same is not acceptable as assessee has not produced any\nevidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all\nthe conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act.\nFurther, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly states that\nany sum paid to a company ... assessee claim towards scientific research &\ndevelopement Rs.3,50,00,000/- cannot be allowed as Ashapura\nMinechem Ltd. not fulfilled the provisions stated in Section 35(1)(iia)of\nthe Income Tax Act.\nMoreover in the same provision of Section 35(1)(iia) of the Income Tax\nAct clearly states that

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

MULTI MANTECH INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3480/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pallav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

Health (hereinafter referred as SHGPH) and claimed deduction of Rs 35,00,000/- being 175% of the amount incurred under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the donation was made on the basis ... details;(5) Certificate of renewal of registration as Scientific and Industrial research Organization (SIRO);(6) Copy of PAN card;(7) Note on Section 35(1)(ii) as well as its awards such as Bharat Nirman Award, Global Page 4 of 12 ITA No. 3480/DEL/2023 [A.Y 2014-15] Multi Mantech

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

35(1)(ii) being 175% of the amount donated. At the time of making the donation, the trust was duly approved under section 35(1)(ii) and all supporting documents such as approval, CBDT circular, recognition certificates and gazette notification were available. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction by relying ... claimed on the basis of valid approval and documentary evidence available at the time of making the donation. As per the Explanation to section 35(1), the deduction cannot be denied merely because approval of the institution is withdrawn subsequent to the payment. The reliance placed by the Assessing Officer

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted\ndeduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still\nallowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any\napproval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee\ncontended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present\ncase.\n51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of\nthe assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i)\nor section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage.\nAccording to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any approval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present case. 51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of the assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. According to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any approval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present case. 51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of the assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. According to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted\ndeduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still\nallowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any\napproval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee\ncontended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present\ncase.\n51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of\nthe assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i)\nor section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage.\nAccording to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any approval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present case. 51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of the assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. According to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

AAKASH VALUE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

validity of notice issued under section 148 and, on merits, the disallowance of deduction amounting to ₹1,79,37,500/- claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of donation of ₹1,02,50,000/- made to Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana (VYASA). 3. The brief facts ... position as an employee and authorized signatory, and had received donations in the name of the trust while issuing receipts certifying eligibility under section 35(1)(ii). It was further stated that the funds so received were diverted and allegedly repaid to donors through other means without the knowledge

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee made contribution of Rs. 40,00,000/- to Shri Arvindo Institute of applied ... cheque, PAN of trust, trust registration number, main/registered office of trust, project for which donation to be applied and trust’s eligibility under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction on basis of the Notification dated 30.10.2016 which clearly stated that the above mentioned trust

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee made contribution of Rs. 40,00,000/- to Shri Arvindo Institute of applied ... cheque, PAN of trust, trust registration number, main/registered office of trust, project for which donation to be applied and trust’s eligibility under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction on basis of the Notification dated 30.10.2016 which clearly stated that the above mentioned trust

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

Years as well. Thus, Ground No. 5 is allowed. 19. As regards to Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1, disallowance of weighted deduction under Section 35 (1)(ii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee made contribution of Rs. 40,00,000/- to Shri Arvindo Institute of applied ... cheque, PAN of trust, trust registration number, main/registered office of trust, project for which donation to be applied and trust’s eligibility under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction on basis of the Notification dated 30.10.2016 which clearly stated that the above mentioned trust

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 491/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

AO/DRP erred in not allowing 100% deduction of R&D expenditure incurred on clinical trials under the provisions of section 35(1)(1). 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing certain marketing expenditure incurred towards doctor

DR. REDDYS, LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 490/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.490 & 491/Hyd/2022 Assessment Years 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad. The Acit, Vs. Pin – 500 034. Circle-8(1), Hyderabad – Telangana. 500 084. Pan Aaacd7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca Padamchand Khincha राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms. U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA Padamchand KhinchaFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

AO/DRP erred in not allowing 100% deduction of R&D expenditure incurred on clinical trials under the provisions of section 35(1)(1). 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP erred in disallowing certain marketing expenditure incurred towards doctor

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2286/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

case on hand as we are considering the case falling under Section 35 of the Act. In terms of Explanation to Section 35(1) (iii) of the Act, deductions to which the assessee is entitled to in respect of any sum paid research organisation, university etc. shall not be denied ... consideration :- A. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in allowing the deductions claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the assessee company for donation to the M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio- Herbal Research Foundation is perverse considering that there were ample

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2285/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

case on hand as we are considering the case falling under Section 35 of the Act. In terms of Explanation to Section 35(1) (iii) of the Act, deductions to which the assessee is entitled to in respect of any sum paid research organisation, university etc. shall not be denied ... consideration :- A. Whether the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in allowing the deductions claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the assessee company for donation to the M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio- Herbal Research Foundation is perverse considering that there were ample

Showing 1–20 of 253 · Page 1 of 13

...