← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1) is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), cited in 543 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Udaipur v. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sandh Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 616 · 2013 · High Court
304
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(va) or Section 43B for delayed payment of employee's contributions to ESI or PF if these amounts are deposited by the assessee on or before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1). This aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions for allowability.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

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.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT
35 ITR 594 · 1959 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

A transaction is considered an adventure in the nature of trade, constituting business income, if there is a pre-determination to sell an asset at a profit. Conduct prior to purchase, as well as subsequent improvements, are relevant in determining the character of the transaction.

Judgments citing Section 35(1)

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

Mavani Nilesh Harishbhai HUF, Porbandar vs. ITO, WD-2(3), Porbandar

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

ITA 422/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

High Court of Madras in the case of Madurai Knitting Co. [1976] 104 ITR 36 (Madras), wherein Hon`ble Court held as follows: “Section 35(1) of the 1922 Act, and section 154 of the 1961 Act, are in pari materia. Both confer jurisdiction on an ITO for rectifying mistakes

Cosmos Engitech Private Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

completed on 18.08.2017 determining the same income. It was later noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.52,50,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) on account of donation to M/s Bioved Research Society. As per the information available with the Department, CBDT had withdrawn the approval granted ... Bioved Research Society under section 35(1)(ii) with effect from 01.04.2011 vide Notification No. 3/2019 dated 25.01.2019, circulated on 28.02.2019. Consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee was not allowable. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 12.07.2019 after recording reasons and obtaining due approval. In response

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Taylormade Renewables Limited, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 35(1)(ii)

limited scrutiny to verify the deduction on account of donation for scientific research. The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.75,00,000/- under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of donation of Rs.50,00,000/- made to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust (hereinafter referred ... Assessing Officer had disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that the Institute was not approved to raise donation under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for the year under consideration. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 02.09.2021 at a total

Nitta Gelatin India Limited, Kochi vs. Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

applied for. Where the law wanted the expenditure to be approved by prescribed authority, then the same was expressly provided as in section 35(1)(i) of the Act and in section 35(2B) of the Act. However, for the purpose of section 35

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

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

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

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

subsequent years. The year under consideration is not the initial year. 10.1 As far as deduction u/s 35 which includes Sections 35(1) and 35(2AB), separate notes attached which evidence that all the formalities and forms were filed by the assessee in time. The DSIR, though passed the order

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

later selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the purpose of verifying the “large deduction claimed under section 35(1) of the Act.” During the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had claimed a weighted deduction of Rs. 43,75,000/- under section 35(1 ... received from the institute. Consequently, the AO issued a show-cause notice to the assessee proposing to disallow the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, on the ground that the Central Government, vide Notification No. 78/2016 dated 06.09.2016, had rescinded the approval earlier granted to Matrivani

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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 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

M/S 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

ITA 287/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 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

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

Malwa Oxygen and Industrial Gases Private Limited, Sector C, Industrial Area vs. AO-Ratlam/Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Ratlam/Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

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

circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the normal deduction of such expenses under section 35(1) and 37(1) of the Act in respect of revenue expenditure incurred amounting to Rs. 24,79,955~. The Appellant prays that deduction of expenses ... revenue expenses and depreciation u/s 32 for capital expenses. Thus, the alternative claim arises due to shifting from section 35(2AB) to sections 35(1)(i)/32 and it is not a case of making a new or fresh claim before AO so that Goetz India will come

Amber Enterprises India Limited, Rajpura, Punjab vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

additions. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,96,88,965/- under section 35(1)(i) and weighted deduction of Rs. 29,30,17,001/- under section 35(2AB) on in- house R&D expenditure of Rs.19 ... specific queries vide notice under section 142(1) dated 30.12.2021 calling upon the assessee to furnish complete details of the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(i) and 35(2AB) along with supporting evidences, approval of DSIR, copy of Form 3CM, audit report, details of in- house R&D facilities

Parag Dave, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

facts in observing that appellant made a bogus claim merely on the basis that as per letter received from CBDT no certificate under section 35(1)(ii) was issued. The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the reply of appellant in toto. It be so held now and disallowance made ... Income Tax Act 1961. The appellant wants to state that the above scientific research institute has also been approved under Section 35(1)(8) of IT Act, 1961 also. The appellant further states that the recognition of donee as scientific & industrial research organisation was also approved. The retrospective withdrawal

Nnd Ambernath LLP, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4512/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal and Ms. Jinesha Mehta, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. A/R
Section 17Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

assessee had claimed deduction of ` 17,50,000, being one and on half times of the amount of ` 10 lakh, in terms of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. It is also not disputed that at the time of making such donation, SHG&PH was having a valid approval ... registration to SHG&PH vide CBDT order dated 15th September 2016, with retrospective effect can invalidate assessee’s claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. In this context, Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) of the Act has a significant bearing. The said provision reads

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

claim? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that subsequent inquiries by the investigation unit established that the donee trust ... withdrawal of its recognition? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the retrospective withdrawal of recognition under Section 35(1)(ii) does not affect the allowability of deduction, without considering that the Revenue has demonstrated that the donee trust was engaged in non-genuine activities

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2111/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35(1)(ii)

claim? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the fact that subsequent inquiries by the investigation unit established that the donee trust ... withdrawal of its recognition? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the retrospective withdrawal of recognition under Section 35(1)(ii) does not affect the allowability of deduction, without considering that the Revenue has demonstrated that the donee trust was engaged in non-genuine activities