What is the leading case on Section 35(1)(ii)?

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) is the decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(ii), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax. 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.

Which cases are most cited on Section 35(1)(ii)?

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385) — 270 citing judgments; CIT v. Microlabs Ltd. (383 ITR 490) — 175 citing judgments; Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 323) — 130 citing judgments; Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT (345 ITR 421) — 97 citing judgments; CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (142 ITR 493) — 95 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 35(1)(ii)?

BharatTax indexes 118 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 35(1)(ii) (Section 35(1)(ii)).

← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)118 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(ii) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(ii)

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. 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.

Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT

327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court

130

citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT

345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

CIT v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.

142 ITR 493 · 1983 · High Court

citing judgments

Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.

ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.

348 ITR 299 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Reopening assessment based on a mere re-look of accounts already furnished and assessed under section 143(3) is not permissible if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that income has escaped assessment merely by re-examining previously filed accounts.

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT

91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court

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.

CIT v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd.

31 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 35(2AB), an incentive provision, allows weighted deduction for expenditure 'on in-house research or development facility' even if related activities like clinical trials are conducted externally, provided they are for the in-house research. This requires a liberal interpretation of the provision.

Judgments citing Section 35(1)(ii)

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)(ii ... 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 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)

Bombay Minerals Limited, Khambhaliya vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Respondent: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

prescribed u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee failed to substantiate eligibility of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee observing as under: “The submission of the assessee has been ... same is not acceptable as assessee has not produced any evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly states that any sum paid to a company must

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 ... donation of Rs.74,00,000/- to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust during the previous year and claimed weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee has placed on record copies of approval, notification, recognition certificates and other supporting documents which were available

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers, Mumbai

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE

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

Rashmikant Bhaichandbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1112/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rashmikant Bhaichandbhai The Ito बनाम/ Shah Ward-5(3)92) V/S. 31, Jain Society Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pritamnagar, Akhada Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afgps 3047 E (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Smt.Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Mamta Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ एस.एम.सी’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग

Simran Motors Pvt.Ltd, Panvel vs. DCIT Circle, Panvel

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

ITA 1071/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5403/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

research association nor undertaking any program of rural development. Also, M/s St. Jude India Child Care Centre is not recognized for purpose of section 35(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961 and hence not eligible to raise donation for undertaking scientific research. Any donation made to this organization

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5402/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Ms. Shivani ShahFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 159Section 35A

Estate of Vandravan P Shah, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah

Section 147Section 148Section 35A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

Shivi Mukesh Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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

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

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

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 ... Appellate Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in giving relief to the assessee by allowing the claim of bogus donations under Section 35(1)(ii) by stating that the CBDT had recognized such bogus entry providing concerns namely M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio- Herbal Research Foundation under section 35(1

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

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