← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(1)(i)95 judgments

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1 ... that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under se the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. ction 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CICLE-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue

ITA 5409/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurang R. Sanghavi (Virtually appeared)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section of M/s Ashapura Minechem Ltd. under the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the 35(1 ... that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all evidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under se the conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. ction 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act. Further, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly

BOMBAY MINERALS LIMITED,KHAMBHALIYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for AY 2016-17 is\ndismissed whereas appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is partly\nallowed and appeal for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 5408/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 36(1)(iii)

nthe same is not acceptable as assessee has not produced any\nevidence substantiating that Ashapura Mincechem Ltd. fulfilled all\nthe conditions prescribed under section 35(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act.\nFurther, section 35(1)(iia)of the Income Tax Act, clearly states that\nany sum paid to a company ... assessee claim towards scientific research &\ndevelopement Rs.3,50,00,000/- cannot be allowed as Ashapura\nMinechem Ltd. not fulfilled the provisions stated in Section 35(1)(iia)of\nthe Income Tax Act.\nMoreover in the same provision of Section 35(1)(iia) of the Income Tax\nAct clearly states that

SANT SHRI ASHRAMJI MAHILA UTTHAN ASHRAM,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2, AHMEDANAD

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

ITA 1239/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(i)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

SANT SHREE ASHARAMJI MAHILA UTTHAN ASHRAM,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.DIT- (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1154/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)(i)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

ACIT, CIRCLE 24(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NILKAMAL CRATES & CONTAINERS, MUMBAI

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025
Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ाय पीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted\ndeduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still\nallowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any\napproval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee\ncontended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present\ncase.\n51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of\nthe assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i)\nor section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage.\nAccording to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any approval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present case. 51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of the assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. According to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any approval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present case. 51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of the assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. According to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted\ndeduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still\nallowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any\napproval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee\ncontended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present\ncase.\n51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of\nthe assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i)\nor section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage.\nAccording to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

considered as not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act, such expenditure is still allowable under section 35(1)(i) of the Act, which does not require any approval from a prescribed authority. Alternatively, the assessee contended that the expenditure was incurred wholly ... present case. 51.5 Further, the learned CIT(A) observed that the alternative claim of the assessee to allow the unapproved expenditure under section 35(1)(i) or section 37(1) of the Act cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. According to the learned CIT(A), since this alternative claim

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 392/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Patel, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 153(4)Section 153CSection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

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
For Appellant: \nShri Ravindra Poojary,ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 35

compliance of the conditions laid\ndown in various provisions of section35. Now, whereas in some cases, like\nthose coming under the provisions of sections 35(1)(i) and 35(2AB), a specific\napproval of quantum of expenditure, by the prescribed authority, is the pre-\nrequisite for deduction, the provisions

NITTA GELATIN INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI vs. CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 804/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nitta Gelatin India Ltd. .......... Appellant 50/1002, Sbt Avenue, Panampilly Nagar Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabck1582H] Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle- 2(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

applied for. Where the law wanted the expenditure to be approved by prescribed authority, then the same was expressly provided as in section 35(1)(i) of the Act and in section 35(2B) of the Act. However, for the purpose of section 35

MALWA OXYGEN AND INDUSTRIAL GASES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SECTOR C, INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. AO-RATLAM/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, RATLAM/DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

circumstances\nof the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing the normal\ndeduction of such expenses under section 35(1) and 37(1) of the Act in\nrespect of revenue expenditure incurred amounting to Rs.24,79,955/-. The\nAppellant prays that deduction of expenses ... revenue expenses and depreciation u/s 32 for\ncapital expenses. Thus, the alternative claim arises due to shifting from\nsection 35(2AB) to sections 35(1)(i)/32 and it is not a case of making a new\nor fresh claim before AO so that Goetz India will come

AMBER ENTERPRISES INDIA LIMITED, RAJPURA,PUNJAB vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATIALA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(i)

additions. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.1,96,88,965/- under section 35(1)(i) and weighted deduction of Rs. 29,30,17,001/- under section 35(2AB) on in- house R&D expenditure of Rs.19 ... specific queries vide notice under section 142(1) dated 30.12.2021 calling upon the assessee to furnish complete details of the deduction claimed under section 35(1)(i) and 35(2AB) along with supporting evidences, approval of DSIR, copy of Form 3CM, audit report, details of in- house R&D facilities

SAHAJANAND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMTED,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT., SURAT

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

ITA 255/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Hybrid Hearing) Sahajanand Technologies Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Building A1, Sahajanand Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Estate Vakharia Wadi, Nr. Gate, Surat-395 001 Dabholi Char Rasta, Surat- 395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs 4343 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rajesh C. Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/09/2025

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

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

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 ... Income Tax Act 1961. The appellant wants to state that the above scientific research institute has also been approved under Section 35(1)(8) of IT Act, 1961 also. The appellant further states that the recognition of donee as scientific & industrial research organisation was also approved. The retrospective withdrawal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU CIRCLE 1 CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

lakhs incurred in their R&D facility, which was not considered by the DSIR for weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB), under section 35(1)(i). 4. The next ground raised for the Assessment Year 2017-18 is disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va). This is raised for the first time before

MANATEC ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 4(1),CHENNAI, CHENNAI

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

ITA 83/CHNY/2025[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.83/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Manatec Electronics Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, 19A, Abinav Kailash, Corporate Ward 4(1), Velachery Road, Little Mount, Chennai. Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. [Pan:Aafcm1685D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. & Ms. Ranjini, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. As Per Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhyaarthi, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 37Section 37(1)

DSIR in Form 3CL and an amount of ₹.11,353/- being the difference in capital expenditure claimed and approved to be allowed under section 35(1)(i)/37 & 35(1)(iv) of the Act, but, however, in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5