“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)

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)

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)(ii) on account of a donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- made to Matrivani Institute of Experimental Research & Education (MIER&E), Kolkata. To verify ... 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

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 ... 894/Ahd/2024 Parag Dave, A.Y. 2016-17 submit that the contention of the lower authorities in denying the deduction claimed by us under Section 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 2650000/- being 175% of donation of Rs.1500000/- made to Shree Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust, Pondichery is not sustainable

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)

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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)

Chromex, Mumbai vs. DCIT -17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed dismissed

ITA 3793/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chromex, Dcit-17(1), 406, Konarkshram, 156, Pmm Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Vs. Road, Tardeo, West, Mumbai-400034. Mumbai. Pan No. Aabfc 4027 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Asif Karmali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CA

Section 133(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

neither given any cts of that case because Sanskriti Sagar has neither given any donation to this Trust and claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) donation to this Trust and claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) donation to this Trust and claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii ... claiming deduction on fulfillment of conditions under section claiming deduction on fulfillment of conditions under section claiming deduction on fulfillment of conditions under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rather it is a case where Revenue 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, rather

Breach Candy Medical Research Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1395/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Breach Candy Medical Ito(Exemption)-1(1) Research Centre Room No. 508, 5Th 60-A, Bhulabhai Desai Road Vs. Floor, Pirmal Mumbai-400 026. Chamber, Parel Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Aaatb0045Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Paras Savla

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 35(1)(ii)

submitted that the appellant institution is an approved research association for the purposes of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act and the same was notified by Central Government through Notification No 38 of 2009 dated 28.4.2009. The Ld. AR of the appellant institution emphasized that ... appellant is a trust registered under 12A, whereas the fact is that it is an institution which was approved research association under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act and notified as above. Since the appellant is not registered under section 12A, and approved under 35(1)(ii), provisions

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Unique Retreads Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 785/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 144Section 147Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

declaring total income of Rs.53,64,110/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had received an information that the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.12,25,000/- @ 175% on the donation of Assessment Year: 2016-17 Unique Retreads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-3 Page ... read with Section 144 of the Act on 24.03.2023 at total income of Rs.65,89,110/- after disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT had called for the records and found that as per 26AS the assessee had received contract income

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6749/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

Rs.15,00,000 in A.Y.2013-14 & Rs. 17,00,000/- in A.Y.2014-15 and claimed deduction of 175% in Income Tax Return under Section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On 27/01/2015, the Investigation Wing Kolkata conducted survey and recorded statement of Founder and Secretary Smt. Samadrita Mukherjee Sardar ... assessee and allowed by the Assessing Officer is of Rs.1,22,50,000/- i.e. @ 175% of the donation as allowed by section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. 10. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld.counsel for the assessee had pointed out that this claim was duly examined

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 534/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 542/CHANDI/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(II)Section 35(1)(ii)

assessee company had filed its return of income at a figure of Rs. 3,70,11,050/- wherein a deduction was claimed under section 35(1)(ii) @ 125% on the donation of sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- paid to Indian Medical Scientific & Research Foundation. ('IMSRF' 'In short' herein after ... basis of information received from DDIT (Inv)-I Ldh., and it has been, further alleged in the said reasons that Deduction under section 35(1)(ii) has been wrongly claimed as the said Institution IMSRF is engaged in giving bogus donation entries / accommodation entries and hence on account of this

Nadia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nadia vs. The Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathancathy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5 (2), Kolkata Model House, 3Rd Floor, Room No.10, 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Aadcc 5211 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.03.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051484765(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Had Disallowed The Assessee'S Donation Of Rs.7 Lakhs Made To M/S Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (Hhbrf) Which Have The Approval U/S.35(1)(Ii) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Disallowance Made Was To An Extent Of Rs.12,25,000/-. It Was The Submission That On Appeal, Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Nor The Reply To The Remand Report Confirmed

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

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 ... issue which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the deductions claimed by the assessee under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for the donation to a organization who initially enjoyed a registration under Section 35(1) of the Act, which

My Healthskape Medicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2120/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2120/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. My Healthskape V/S. Pcit, Mumbai-4 Medicals Pvt. Ltd. बिाम Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, 4-425A, Sharma Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Estate, Walbhat Road, Karve Road, Mumbai- Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400020 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4683K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 12ASection 135Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 37Section 80G

clause 19 of Auditors 3CD report the assessee is admissible for deduction of Rs.15,00,000/(175% on Rs.20,00,000/-) under section 35(1)(ii) of the IT Act. The deduction on amount of Rs.20,00,000/- allowed was pertaining to donation given to Bioved Research Society. The registration

H.B. Gum Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax 7(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5386/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(4)(ii)

home to senior citizens and how providing home to senior citizens can be said to be as scientific research within the meaning of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. It is Page | 5 SS ITA No. 5386/Mum/2024 H. B. Gum Industries Pvt. Ltd. also observed that the assessee ... donation of Rs. 35,00,000/-under Section 35()(ti) of the Income-tax Act. Appellant prays that disallowance of donation under Section 35(1)(ii) be deleted. 1.2 Without prejudice to the above, Appellant submits that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on general statement

DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hydeabad vs. Avra Laboratories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA