← All Phrases

“Section 35(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(3)40 judgments

MATRIX CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT-CC-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3805/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

regard, then assessing officer has to request the Board to refer such question to the prescribed authority as provided under clause (b) of Section 35(3). In other words, the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the prescribed authority is not examined by the assessing officer ... Industrial Research. This is the plain meaning which can be deciphered from the perusal of above said statutory provisions. 21. Thus, reading of Section 35 (3) of the Act would clearly indicate that where the assessing officer does not accept the claim of the assessee made under Section 35

MATRIX CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmatrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B Assessee By : Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv Shri Himanshu Agarwal, Adv Shri Akash Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, Village Mohammadpur, Central Circle-18, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon- Delhi 122 001, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm8475B

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Chetan P. S. Rao, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

regard, then assessing officer has to request the Board to refer such question to the prescribed authority as provided under clause (b) of Section 35(3). In other words, the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the prescribed authority is not examined by the assessing officer ... Industrial Research. This is the plain meaning which can be deciphered from the perusal of above said statutory provisions. 21. Thus, reading of Section 35 (3) of the Act would clearly indicate that where the assessing officer does not accept the claim of the assessee made under Section 35

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, 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)

whether the activity carried on by the assessee and the expenditure incurred in relation to scientific research, is allowable in terms of section 35(3) r.w.s. 43(4) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court further held that where the DSIR has certified the expenditure in form

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Prior to amendment to Rule 6 of the IT Rules, the provision of section 35(3) of the Act does not provide the scope for referring to DSIR for determining the amount of expenditure eligible for deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 55/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

authority itself and it would not be in the domain of the assessing authority to undertake such an exercise. When Section 35(2AB), Section 35(3) and Section 43(4) of the Act are read harmoniously, the irresistible conclusion that has be drawn would be that assessing officer cannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MRF LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 35

authority itself and it would not be in the domain of the assessing authority to undertake such an exercise. When Section 35(2AB), Section 35(3) and Section 43(4) of the Act are read harmoniously, the irresistible conclusion that has be drawn would be that assessing officer cannot

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2868/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1) and section 35(3) of the Act, it would be amply clear that even prior to the amendment made to Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules, the Prescribed Authority ... Counsel for the assessee cannot be applied for the reason that the Tribunal, while passing order, has not discussed section 35(3) of the Act and prayed ground raised by the assessee. 10.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We admit the additional ground

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2867/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1) and section 35(3) of the Act, it would be amply clear that even prior to the amendment made to Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules, the Prescribed Authority ... Counsel for the assessee cannot be applied for the reason that the Tribunal, while passing order, has not discussed section 35(3) of the Act and prayed ground raised by the assessee. 10.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We admit the additional ground

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

ITA 2866/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.2865, 2866, 2867 & 2868/Chny/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19) M/S. Carborundum Universal Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Limited, No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House Moore Street,Chennai Gpo Parrys, – 600 001. Pan: Aaacc-2474-P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकी तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]All Dated10.09.2024 For Assessment Years 2010-11, 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2018-19.Since The Facts & Issues Are Common In These Appeals, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

other hand, the Id. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1) and section 35(3) of the Act, it would be amply clear that even prior to the amendment made to Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules, the Prescribed Authority ... Counsel for the assessee cannot be applied for the reason that the Tribunal, while passing order, has not discussed section 35(3) of the Act and prayed that the amount of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer based on the DSIR valuation should be upheld and dismiss the ground raised

CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT LTU-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2865/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs.Samantha Mullamudi
Section 115JSection 14ASection 8D(2)(ii)

other hand, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1) and section 35(3) of the Act, it would be amply clear that even prior to the amendment made to Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules, the Prescribed Authority ... Counsel for the assessee cannot be applied for the reason that the Tribunal, while passing order, has not discussed section 35(3) of the Act and prayed ground raised by the assessee. 10.5 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We admit the additional ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. E I D PARRY INDIA LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3251/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

other hand, by filing written submissions, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1) and section 35(3) of the Act, it would be amply clear that even prior to the amendment made to Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules ... Counsel for the assessee cannot be applied for the reason that the Tribunal, while passing order, has not discussed section 35(3) of the Act and prayed that the amount of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer based on the DSIR valuation should be upheld and dismiss the ground raised

M/S. EID PARRY INDIA LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, LTU-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathait(Tp)A. Nos.:105, 106, 107/Chny/2024 & Ita No.3113/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. E.I.D. Parry India Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 234, Dare House, Nsc Vs. Income Tax, Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai 600 001. Chennai. [Pan: Aaace-0702-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

other hand, by filing written submissions, the ld. DR has argued that by conjointly reading the provisions of section 35(2AB)(1) and section 35(3) of the Act, it would be amply clear that even prior to the amendment made to Rule 6(7A) of the Income Tax Rules ... Counsel for the assessee cannot be applied for the reason that the Tribunal, while passing order, has not discussed section 35(3) of the Act and prayed that the amount of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer based on the DSIR valuation should be upheld and dismiss the ground raised

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(3)(2),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: \nMr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

n3CL in amounts claimed by the assessee, it has the option of making reference\nto the prescribed authority as per the provisions of section 35(3). In case the\nassessee or the revenue wishes to seek any variation in the amount quantified\nby the prescribed authority in Form ... reference is required to be made to\nthe prescribed authority in terms of section 35(3)(b) whose decision shall be\nfinal. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld. AO was justified in restricting\nthe allowance of expenditure on in-house R&D to the amounts mentioned

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

certified by the DSIR. In this case, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the AO in light of express provisions of section 35(3) should have referred the matter to the Board who in turn would refer such question to the M/s. Asian Paints prescribed authority ... decision would be final. In this context, the assessee has stated that the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3). It is to be stated that in this case the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3) because he has accepted the quantum

DY CIT CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3063/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

certified by the DSIR. In this case, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the AO in light of express provisions of section 35(3) should have referred the matter to the Board who in turn would refer such question to the prescribed authority and its decision would ... final. In this context, the assessee has stated that the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3). It is to be stated that in this case the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3) because he has accepted the quantum of expenditure incurred

DY CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS, MUMBAI

ITA 2936/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

certified by the DSIR. In this case, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the AO in light of express provisions of section 35(3) should have referred the matter to the Board who in turn would refer such question to the prescribed authority and its decision would ... final. In this context, the assessee has stated that the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3). It is to be stated that in this case the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3) because he has accepted the quantum of expenditure incurred

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 2, CUFFE PARADE

ITA 2700/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

certified by the DSIR. In this case, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the AO in light of express provisions of section 35(3) should have referred the matter to the Board who in turn would refer such question to the prescribed authority and its decision would ... final. In this context, the assessee has stated that the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3). It is to be stated that in this case the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3) because he has accepted the quantum of expenditure incurred

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU CIRCLE 1, CUFFE PARADE

ITA 2697/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

certified by the DSIR. In this case, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the AO in light of express provisions of section 35(3) should have referred the matter to the Board who in turn would refer such question to the prescribed authority and its decision would ... final. In this context, the assessee has stated that the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3). It is to be stated that in this case the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3) because he has accepted the quantum of expenditure incurred

ASIAN PAINTS LIMITED,SANTACRUZ vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

certified by the DSIR. In this case, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that the AO in light of express provisions of section 35(3) should have referred the matter to the Board who in turn would refer such question to the prescribed authority and its decision would ... final. In this context, the assessee has stated that the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3). It is to be stated that in this case the AO has not made any reference to section 35(3) because he has accepted the quantum of expenditure incurred

DY.CIT. CC.5(2) CENT. RG. -5, MUMBAI vs. M/S. USV PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2574/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2574/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2356/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit-Cc-5(2) बिधम/ M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd. Central Range-5, Room Arvind Vithal Gandhi Vs. No.1908, Air India Building, Chowk, Govandi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400088. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu1366N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla Shri Pratik Poddar Revenue By: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter “Ld. Cit(A)], Mumbai Dated 31.08.2020 & Order Dated 10.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 & Ay. 2013-14 Respectively. Since Issues In Both The Years Were The Same, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Agreed That There Is No Change Of Facts Or Position In Law Across Both These Years & Therefore Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. We Accordingly Dispose Both The Appeals By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair (Sr. DR)
Section 115JSection 92C

factual background, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court is noted to have examined the provisions of Section 35(2AB), Section 43(4) and Section 35(3) of the Act and held that that if any question arises as to what extent, any activity constitutes or constituted or an asset ... they wanted the approval to be reviewed, then they had to approach the Board in the manner as laid down in Section 35(3) of 15 2356/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 USV Pvt. Ltd. the Act. We thus note that the facts involved and the issue before

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

Section 35(3) — 40 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax