← All Phrases

“Section 35(2)(ab)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(2)(ab)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 35(2)(ab) is Narayana Chetty v. ITO (35 ITR 388), cited in 73 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 35(2)(ab)

Narayana Chetty v. ITO
35 ITR 388 · 1959 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

A valid and properly served notice under section 148 (or old section 34) is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite for initiating reassessment proceedings; its absence or invalidity renders the entire proceedings illegal and void ab initio. The validity of service hinges on adherence to prescribed modes, not merely the recipient's acknowledgment.

Judgments citing Section 35(2)(ab)

Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Sion Trombay Road Chembur vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojary,ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 35

deduction, the provisions of section 35(2AB) requires approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. For ready reference, section 35(2)(AB) reads as under: Page | 14 ITA No. 4952/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2012-13 Flamingo Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai Expenditure on scientific research. 35. (2AB)(1) Where

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH 'E', MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

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

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2458/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

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

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2457/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

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

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. Phillips Carbon Black Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2456/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

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

Pcbl Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2034/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

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

Crest Speciality Resins Private Limited, Kheda, Gujarat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Now DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under

ITA 1585/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

deduction, the provisions of section 35(2AB) requires approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. For ready reference, section 35(2)(AB) reads as under: Expenditure on scientific research 35(2AB)(1) Where a company engaged in the business of bio-technology or in any business

Crest Speciality Resins Private Limited, Kheda, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Now DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad), Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for both the years under consideration

ITA 1583/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

deduction, the provisions of section 35(2AB) requires approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. For ready reference, section 35(2)(AB) reads as under: Expenditure on scientific research 35(2AB)(1) Where a company engaged in the business of bio-technology or in any business

Lumis Biotech Private Limited, Tardeo vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 7(1)(1), Ayakar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 493/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(2)(AB)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

deduction, the provisions of section 35(2AB) requires approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. For ready reference, section 35(2)(AB) reads as under: Expenditure on scientific research. 35. (2AB)(1) Where a company engaged in the business of bio- technology or in any business

DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi vs. Polyplex Corporation Limited., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)(AB)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

income place at PB Pg 2 and assessee furnished copy of report from accountant in form 3CLA, in accordance to the provision of section 35(2)AB of the Act. (PB Pg 134-137). 6. Thereafter, during the course of assessment proceedings, approval of secretary, DSIR in respect of expenditure ... Rs.4.41 crores incurred for running / operation of research & development unit established as per the provision of section 35(2)(AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was received on 22.11.2018. (PB Pg. 138-140) whereby the expenditure of Rs. 2.85 crores was approved as against the amount

Deepak Novochem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2562/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 35

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

Deepak Novochem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2561/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 35

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

Deepak Novochem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2560/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 35

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

Deepak Novochem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2559/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 35

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

Deepak Novochem Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2558/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Ita Nos. 2558 To 2562/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Deepak Novochem The Acit, Cc-8(1), Technologies Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Vs. 515, 5Th Floor, Citi Point, Boat 656, 6Th Floor, M.K. Road, Club Road, Pune City, Mumbai-400020. Pune-411 001. Pan No. Aaccd 5796 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. H.P. Mahajani Revenue By : Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023

For Appellant: Mr. H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 35

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

ACIT- Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Cg Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (Formerly Known As Crompton Greaves Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2955/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
Section 14Section 14ASection 35Section 80I

deduction, the provisions of section 35(2AB) requires approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. For ready reference, section 35(2)(AB) reads as under: Expenditure on scientific research. 10 M/s. CG Power & Industrial Solution Ltd. (formerly known as Crompton Greaves Ltd.) 35 (2AB)(1) Where

DCIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Usv Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal we refrain to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No. 8 raised by the Revenue is, therefore, ...

ITA 2575/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla and Shri Pratik PodarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 35Section 40

deduction, the provisions of section 35(2AB) requires approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. For ready reference, section 35(2)(AB) reads as under: xx xx 9. The operative phrase here is "on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority