← 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
97
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
95
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
76
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
73
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
65
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)

Dy CIT, Mumbai vs. Innergize Solution P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in limini

ITA 1818/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1818/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit Circle –6(3)(1), M/S Innergize R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Solution Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Bhavan, M. K. Road, 33, Vaibhav, Cadell Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aabci5086L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nihar Samal, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. P. Bhandari, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 28.08.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Samal, LdFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Bhandari, Ld
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 720/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhavesh Arunkumar Vs. Acit – 19(1) Shah Matru Mandir G-7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Grant Road, Tardeo, 1St Panjrapole Lane, Cp Mumbai-400007 Tank, Mumbai – 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Andps5035M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Suchek Anchaliya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.C.T. Mathews. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Suchek Anchaliya.ARFor Respondent: Mr.C.T. Mathews. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

institutions viz: 'Matrivani' and 'The School of Human Genetics and Population Health', therefore these institutions are not entitled to claim benefit under section 35 (1) (ii) of the Act. Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai. We note that the withdrawal of recognition u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act in the hands ... payee has taken place subsequent to the payment by the assessee. The Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai. assessee’s case duly follows under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act which read as under :- Section 35(1)(ii) : an amount equal to one and one half times of any sum paid