“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)

DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Kanakia Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the

ITA 1601/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailand Shriomkareshwar Chidaradcit, Central Circle-4(1) 1916, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400021. V/S

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das – CIT DR

Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRIOMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Aeonx Digital Technology Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2406/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR. D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(4)(ii)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S Gassin Pierre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

Income Tax Officer - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tainwala Holdings Private Limited, Andheri East Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1066/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer-11(3)(1), Tainwala Holdings Private Mumbai Limited Vs 403, Ackruti Star, Central Road, Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400093. Pan: Aaact 1542 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shan, Advocate a/w Shri Kunal ShahFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 35ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘E’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Surendra Kumar Kapur., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata

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

ITA 1354/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1354/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surendra Kumar Kapur ………. Appellant (Pan: Afxpk4223K) Vs. Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata ………… Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.06.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-22, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2016. I.T.A. No. 1354/Kol/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Surendra Kumar Kapur 2. Though Registry Has Reported That This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 62 Days However, Considering The Date Of Receipt Of The Impugned Order, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing This Appeal. We, Therefore, Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits.

Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

erred in upholding the disallowance of the appellant's genuine and bona fide claim for deduction of Rs. 2,62,50,000 under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and his purported findings in that behalf are wholly arbitrary, erroneous, unreasonable and perverse. 1.2 For that ... 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

DCIT(E)1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Register of Shiping, Mumbai

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

ITA 4084/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhridcit(E)1(1) V/S Indian Register Of Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, बनाम Shipping, Mtnl Building, Cumballa 52A, Adi Shankaracharya Hill, Marg, Apposite Powai Mumbai-400026 Lake, Mumbai-400072 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaci2381M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh

Section 10(21)Section 11(5)Section 25Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

vide his order dated 22.09.2023 deleted the additions with the following observations: “5.1.8 The appellant is a research association as per provisions of Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act recognized by the Department of Scientific Page 2 of 6 A.Y. 2018-19 Indian Register of Shiping and Industrial Research ... which the claim for exemption of income u/s 10(21) was made, the same was requisitioned for perusal which has been filed. Section 35(1)(ii) allows weighted deduction to a donor in respect of sum paid to an organization for scientific research. The relevant portion is reproduced hereunder: “35

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1202/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

229/169 ITD 271 (Pune) (Trib.), the assessee received corpus donations amounting to Rs. 3 crore and it was neither approved by CBDT under section 35(1)(ii) nor under section 12A/12AA of the Act. In the assessment, it was held that the corpus donation was not exempt income and since

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1150/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

Chemstar International, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Jm) I.T.A. Nos. 3798 & 3799/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & Ay. 2014-15) Chemstar International Vs. Dcit-24(1) 102-D, Nirman Palace, Piramal Chambers, Pump House, Rajmata Lalbaug, Mumbai- Jijabai Road, Andheri 400012. East, Mumbai-400093. Pan : Aabfc8974G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ridhisha Jain Department By Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.06.2024 Dateof Pronouncement 05.07.2024 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

donated to these two institutes which were approved by the Central Government for the purposes of section 35(1) (ii) of the Act read with Rule 5C and SE of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In the assessment year 2013-14, the assessee claimed weighted deduction of Rs.4 ... under section 35(1) (ii) of the Act, which is 175% of the amount of donation being the sum of Rs.2,75,00,0007- in respect of the donation given to 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health'. We note that the Notifications to this effect, that these

Chemstar International, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3798/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune

ITA 998/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

attributed for the same and which has been rightly deleted by Ld.CIT(A). Disallowance of deduction of Rs. 52,50,000 claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act 3. failed to appreciate that the Respondent has made donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health ... which was an approved research association eligible for receipt of contribution under section 35(1 )(ii) of the Act on the date of donation and any subsequent withdrawal of recognition shall not affect Respondent’s claim and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) has rightfully deleted the disallowance. Denial of claim

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai Suburban vs. Assistant Commissioner on Income Tax, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3929/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3928/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

M/S. Iolite Cube Inframaterial Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 88/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2016-17 Iolite Cube Inframaterial Ltd. Dcit, Cent.Cir.3 1, Chandramani Nagar Vs Vadodara. Vidhya Vihar Subhanpura, Vadodara 390 020. Pan : Aacci 5944 A (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 250(6)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

present appeal relates to denial of weighted deduction to the assessee on donation made to a scientific research institute in terms of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The amount of donation being Rs.1,25,00,000/- and 3 weighted deduction allowable and claimed on the same amounting ... below with the assistance of the ld.DR and we have noted that the impugned claim of the assessee to the weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act was denied on the donation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- made by the assessee to Shri Arvindo Institute of Applied

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

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

D.C.I.T., CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Navin Construction & Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross- objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE

ACIT, CC-2(1), Kol, Kolkata vs. Shalimar Hatcheries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 546/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35(1)(ii)

appeal. However, its grievance revolves around a single issue, namely whether assessee is entitled for deduction of Rs.1,75,00,000/- under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This donation has been made to M/s. School of Human Genetic and Population Health, Kolkata ... donation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to M/s. School of Human Genetic and Population Health, Kolkata. The assessee has claimed weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) for donating to an assessee, which is engaged in the research activity. However, Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department found that

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

assessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered under section 12A of the Act. The assessee is also approved research organization under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee filed the return of income on 25.09.2013 3 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association declaring income ... dated 06.08.2018 made an alternate plea before the AO that the assessee being engaged in carrying out research activities and being notified under section 35(1)(ii) is entitled to the benefit under section 10(21) of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 31.10.2018 also filed the revised computation

C-Det Explosive Industries Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 312/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2006 had introduced an Explanation in Section 35 of the Act which reads as under:- Section 35(1)(ii) – Explanation A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2014-15 The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid ... 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition

C-Det Explosive Industries Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. D.C.I.T, Circle-2, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 311/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh V. LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)