“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)

Atlantis It Solution, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 303/MUM/2025[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Prabhash Shankaratlantis It Solution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 8, Engineer Building, Awabai Tax 6(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kasahinath Tardeo, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400 020 400 034 Pan : Aalca6845 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, SR DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35ASection 80G(5)

section 35AC in 2 303/Mum/2025 Atlantis IT Solution, Mumbai respect of donations made to M/s BIOVED Research Society which is duly approved under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 whereas on the contrary, the Ld.DR relied on he orders passed by the revenue authorities ... w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and approval under section 80G(5) vide order dated 10th February, 2010. The assessee has also been granted approval under section 35(1)(ii) of the LT. Act by the Government of India Notification dated 01.02.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 for carrying out scientific research. It is not in dispute

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1745/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

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 ... Form No.3CB in respect of amount admissible under Section 35(i)(ii) of the Act observed that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs.54,25,000/- being 175% of Rs.31,00,000/- for donation given to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research

Brightech Valves & Controls Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 52/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.52/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Brightech Valves & Controls Vs. Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No.345, Gidc Kathwada. Income Tax, Kathwada, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-382430. Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Adjournment Application FiledFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 35(1)(ii)

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 ... AAFTS7349D v. Trust Registration number vi. Main office vii. Registered office viii. Project for which donation is to be applied ix. Eligibility under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 After necessary review of the details called for, the AO was satisfied and accordingly allowed the claim

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CA, Ld. AR &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making disallowance of donation claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted ... allowing the claim under Section 35(1) (ii). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 8,00,000 (being 8% of Rs. 1

Ashvin Parsottambhai Sardhara, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 68/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.68/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ashvin Parsottambhai Vs. The Assistant Sardhara, Commissioner Of B-27, Sudarshan Tower, Income Tax, Opp. Sun-N-Step Club, Circle-4(1)(1), Sal Hospital Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan No.Bdjps2083Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D K Parikh, Ar Respondent By: Adjournment Application Filed Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Adjournment Application filed

Section 35(1)(ii)

effective issued raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance of the weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for Rs.17,50,000/- 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35 ... Notification No 3 of 2019 dated 02.01.2019. The circular also stated that M/s Bioved Research Society. Allahabad had grossly misused the provision of Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by allegedly providing accommodation entries to the donors in the name of research activities and which enabled the donors

Pjl Clothing India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8 2 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 5916/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

information . As per information RDS, Hyderabad was not recognized for the Hyderabad was not recognized for the purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for purpose of Section 35(1)(ii) and not eligible for raising any donation for purpose of Section 35(1 ... Clothing India Pvt Ltd. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, notice 148 . Accordingly, notice 148 was issued to the assessee. was issued to the assessee. It filed return

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 614/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

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

2385/KOL/2019, ITA Nos. 2448, 2449/KOL/2019 (d) What influence the assessee to give this donation to this Institution other than deduction under section 35(1)(ii). (e) The appellants are not in this line of business and, therefore, it is difficult to understand the very purpose of this transaction undertaken ... 2247/KOL/2017, ITA Nos. 2316, 2317/KOL/2019, ITA No. 2385/KOL/2019, ITA Nos. 2448, 2449/KOL/2019 given any donation to this Trust and claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) nor it has returned the money in cash out of a small donation received by it from Herbicure, a similar Trust

Shri Go0Vinddas Govardhandas Daga, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 601/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

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

Asia Society India Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 3921/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 250

Court reads as under: “2. Section 10(21) provides for exemption of any income of a scientific research association which is approved under section 35(1)(ii) The first proviso, however, makes the exemption subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section ... with section 11(2) and (3) of the Act. 3. The petitioner is a scientific research society approved by the competent authority under section 35(1)(ii) for research activity in the field of coronary diseases and other connected fields. In this writ petition we are concerned with the validity

Kapadia Marketing Inc., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 95/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 25(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(ii)

taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,05,00,000 under Section 35(1)(ii) being the donation of Rs.70,00,000 given to Shri Arvind Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust ... much as the said Institute has furnished the different certificates to CBDT from time to time granting approval under Section 35(1)(ii) upto 31-03-2019 and that the assessee is aware that such certificates are false certificates, if any, and therefore the donation of Rs.70

Unimax Chemicals Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal in allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

said amount. Learned assessing officer, further found that the notification granting approval to 3 Unimax Chemicals Private Limited Herbicure, under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, was withdrawn with the retrospective effect vide S.02882(E) dated 06.09.2016. Learned assessing officer drew conclusions accordingly and added the weighted deduction ... disallowance of weighted deduction of Rs. 10,50,00,000/-, for A.Y. 2014-15, claimed by him under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of the amounts of donations made to two Institutions viz. 'Matrivani Institute Experimental Research & Education' (hereinafter referred to as 'Matrivani') and "The School

Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 4610/MUM/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S Eastern Cargo Carriers (India) The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Pvt. Ltd., Department, Vs. Unit No. 26, Adarsh Ind. Estates, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400099. Pan No. Aaace 1520 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Sheth a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)(a)

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

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

D Thakkar Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2975/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(vii)

Prafulla Kumar Malakar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Kolkata vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2027/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

Kumari Properties Ltd. 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 ... 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow, Lucknow vs. Bioved Research Society, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 286/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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

I.T.A. No.286/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

ACIT-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ashitkumar Gunvantrai Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross-objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1914/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

Gunvantrai Shah A.Y. 2014-15 “4. Without reiterating the facts as elaborated above, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) to the amount of Rs.1,92,50,000/- as donation provided to School of Human Genetics and Population Health on the ground that ... filed before the lower authorities, i.e. donation receipt, copy of registration certificate issued under section 12A, copy of notification of approval issued under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the CBDT in the name of School of Human Genetics and Population Health. It is further noticed that CBDT

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)(ii ... 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

ACIT, Kautilya Bhavan vs. Vijaya Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2839/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Respondent: Shri Mehul Shah

Section 12ASection 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(vii)

School of Human Genetics and Population Health and accordingly claimed a deduction of Rs.26,25,000 being 175% of the donation under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. In order to verify the genuineness of the donations to this very institution, commission under section ... assessee was confronted with the findings of the Investigation Wing and was asked to show cause as to why the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) be not disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that theSchool of Human Genetic and Population Health was specified in the category of ‘other

La Pahrma (Gujarat) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1432/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Veerabhadram V, Sr. D.R

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar , Accountant