← All Phrases

“Section 35(1)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(iii) is (1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (251 ITR 61), cited in 49 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(iii)

(1) DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd.
251 ITR 61 · 2001 · High Court
49
citing judgments

Interest paid on money borrowed for acquiring machinery is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) even if the machinery is not put to use in the year of borrowing. This principle applies to the 'for the purpose of business' test for borrowed capital.

414 ITR 122 (Del) (iii) PCIT v. Mcdonald India P Ltd.
101 Taxmann.com 86 · 2019 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not received any exempt income during the relevant assessment year. The mere possibility of earning exempt income does not trigger disallowance.

Usha Beltron Ltd. v. JCIT
247 ITR 324 · 2001 · Reported
30
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment when there is material on record, such as from a survey or a statement, indicating that the assessee has wrongly claimed a deduction.

Trib.) (iii) DCIT v. M/s. STP Ltd.
85 Taxmann.com 80 · 2017 · High Court
18
citing judgments

The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research's (DSIR) role, prior to July 1, 2016, was limited to approving R&D facilities, not the expenditure incurred, even if specific forms were not issued.

Ld. PCIT v. Vedanta Limited
102 Taxmann.com 95 · 2019 · High Court
14
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must record dissatisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim for expenditure to earn exempt income before invoking Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.

Amiantit International Holdings Ltd., In Re(2010)(322 ITR 678)(AAR) (iii) PNB Finance Ltd. v. CIT (
321 ITR 178 · 2010 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Notional figures or hypothetical figures cannot be used for the calculation of profit, gain, or full value of consideration. The profit or gain to the transferor must be a distinctly and clearly identifiable component of the transaction.

Judgments citing Section 35(1)(iii)

Nnd Ambernath LLP, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 28(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4512/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal and Ms. Jinesha Mehta, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. A/R
Section 17Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

under: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. xxxxxx/- under section 35(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considering the same as bogus donation, such deduction is requested to be allowed. 3. The assessee

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 534/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

under: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs. xxxxxx/- under section 35(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 considering the same as bogus donation, such deduction is requested to be allowed. 3. The assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Puducherry vs. Velayudame Ponnambalame Ramalingame, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the C

ITA 2515/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2515/Chny/2024 & C.O No.77/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Asst. Commissioner Of Velayudame Ponnambalame Income Tax, Vs. Ramalingame, Circle-1, 72-74, Perumal Koil Street, Puducherry. Puducherry – 605001. [Pan: Aaipr 7831G]

For Respondent: Ms. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

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)

case on hand as we are considering the case falling under section 35 of the Act. In terms of Explanation to section 35(1)(iii) of the Act, deductions to which the assessee is entitled to in respect of any sum paid to a research organisation, university etc. shall

M/S Raj Kumar Singh & Co., Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1288/LKW/1993[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2024AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

I.T.A. No.1288/Lkw/1993 Assessment year:2090-91 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU

ITO (Exemptions) Rohtak, Rohtak vs. Manohar Education Society, Haryana

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

ITA 2672/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usvs. M/S. Manohar Education Society, Ito (Exemption) Rohtak Cambridge School, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari, Haryana-123 401 Pan No. Aaatm 6003 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Jatender Kumar Kale, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 10Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 35(1)(iii)

embodies exemption in relation to income of a research association for the time being approved for the purposes of section 35(1)(iii) thereof. The assessee however is not engaged in any of such activities. The learned DR thereafter, adverted to the First Appellate order and submitted that

Vaibhav Pankaj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1022/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble& Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2013-14 Vaibhav Pankaj Shah, 60-B, Dolat Bunglow, East West Road No.2, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 049 Pan:Aalps-8652-B - Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 25(3), Mumbai, Room No.232, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 - Respondent- Appellant By : Shri Devendra Jain Respondent By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(2)Section 35(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, HON’BLE PRESIDENT& SHRI

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Ojas Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4143/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Shri

M/S. Ojas Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3714/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Shri

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)

case on hand as we are considering the case falling under Section 35 of the Act. In terms of Explanation to Section 35(1)(iii) of the Act, deductions to which the assessee is entitled to in respect of any sum paid to a research organisation, university etc. shall

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)

case on hand as we are considering the case falling under Section 35 of the Act. In terms of Explanation to Section 35(1)(iii) of the Act, deductions to which the assessee is entitled to in respect of any sum paid to a research organisation, university etc. shall

C-Det Explosive Industries Pvt.Ltd., Nagpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 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 310/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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)

case on hand as we are considering the case falling under Section 35 of the Act. In terms of Explanation to Section 35(1)(iii) of the Act, deductions to which the assessee is entitled to in respect of any sum paid to a research organisation, university etc. shall

Nitin Raj Marwah, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35(1)(iii)

were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has claimed deduction under section 35(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.43,75,000, on account of donations given to the trusts/institutions. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised computation ... total income withdrawing the weighted deduction claimed under section 35(1)(iii) of the Act aggregating to Rs.43,75,000, on account of donations given to trusts/institutions. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 31/10/2016, passed under section 143(3) of the Act, inter-alia, disallowed the deduction

Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah V. Acit – 19(1) G-7, Sarvodaya Nagar Matru Mandir 1St Panjrapole Lane Mumbai – 400 007 C.P. Tank, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Andps5035M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Suchek Anchalia Department Represented By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha

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

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
Section 133ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 756/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12) Vs. ACIT

Swastik Technopack Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1521/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalswastik Technopack Pvt. Ltd. A 1, Pankaj Building, Symphony It Park, Near Megarugus Hall, Chandivali, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 Pan: Aaics9255L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Aditya Ramchandran Respondent By : Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Sh. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

M/S. Long Life Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Guidelines, manner and conditions on the basis of which approval is to be granted under section 35(1)(ii) and section 35(1)(iii). 9.1 Prior to amendments by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 (No.29 of 2006), the provisos to clauses (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL