← 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)

Sadbhav Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 235/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarsr. No. Appellant Respondent 1-7 It(Ss)A.No./ Asstt.Year 170 To 175 & 235/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 13 To 2018-19 Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedbad. Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. 8-14 183 To 189/Ahd/2021 Asst. Year 2012- 14 To 2018-19 Pan : Aadcs 0852 Q Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Ahmedabad. Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Nr. Havmour Restaurant Navrangpura Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 18/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 10/01/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Above Cross-Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against The Consolidated Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) 11, Ahmedabad All Dated 04.08.2021 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short) For The

For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69ASection 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद न्यायपीठ 'A' अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT - 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. D Thakkar Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3477/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrid Thakkar Developers Pvt. V/S. Dcit 14(1)(2), Mumbai Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, D1 & D2, 4Th Floor, Court Churchgate, Mumbai Chambers, Vitthaldas Maharashtra-400020 Thackersey Marg, 35 New Marine Lines, Marine Lines, Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp6396E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Acit 14(1)(2), Mumbai V/S. D Thakkar Developers Pvt. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, बनाम Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M K. 1105/1106, Universal Road, Mumbai Magestic, Behind Rbk Maharashtra-400020 International School, P. L. Lokhande, Marg, Chembur West, Mumbai-400043 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcp6396E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Kirith ShethFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(vii)

justified in reducing the rate of weighted deduction to 125% from 175% ignoring the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a specified rate of 175% for claiming weighted deduction. 2. Whether on the facts of the instant case ... appellant in cash, or in some other form, nor any reference to some negative material specific to the appellant. Explanation below section 35 (1) (iii) prohibits denial of deduction w/s. 35 (1) (ii) only on the ground that approval granted to the donee institution was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, withdrawal

Pondicherry Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporare Ward-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1753/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pondicherry Agro Foods P Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.1B, 1St Floor, Arihant Jashn, Vs. Corporate Ward -5(2), Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Chennai. 38 (Old 121), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aaacp 4418N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Anandd Babunath, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri Anandd Babunath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

However, in this context, it is necessary to refer to explanation to sub-section (1) to section 35 of the Act. Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) of the Act states that donation / contributions are made to an institution when it’s recognition / approval u/s.35(1 ... ignoring the facts that the Central Government vide notification no.79/2016 dated 6.9.2016 withdrew the recognition given to grant approval under section 35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of M/s. Herbicare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation w.e.f. 1.4.2007 ? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case