← All Phrases

“Section 35(2)(ia)”

Section References (mined)Section 35Section 35(2)(ia)15 judgments

Judgments citing Section 35(2)(ia)

Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel vs. Epygen Biotech Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2719/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nasavarak Jore,atj, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35(1)(iv)

without appreciating the fact that commencement of business has not started during the year as required under Explanation 1 to the provisions of section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. So far as the issue under consideration is that section 35(1) and section 35(2) has a direct bearing ... which the business is commenced. So far as capital expenditure incurred after the commencement of business, the same is taken care by Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. 10. We can further understand the said provision with the help of example. For instance, assessee has incurred capital expenditure

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal f

ITA 2600/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.R. Clement Ramesh
Section 2Section 35

terms of Section 35(1)(iv) read with ITA No.2600/Chny/20 /Chny/2024 (AY 2014-15) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. ::7 :: Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital Section 35(2)(ia

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 561/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

normal deduction i.e. 100% of the capital expenditure incurred at its R&D facility in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital expenditure is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35

M/S. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 8(1)-Ltu-2, Chennai

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

ITA 554/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

normal deduction i.e. 100% of the capital expenditure incurred at its R&D facility in terms of Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act, irrespective whether such capital expenditure is eligible for weighted deduction u/s 35

Arrdy Enginnering Innovations (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

deduction for R & D expenditure in respect of both revenue and capital expenditure as provided U/s. 35(1)(i) and (iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) of the Act which does not provide for any such conditionality. 4 Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order ... ought to have at least allowed 100% deduction U/s. 35(1)&(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 4. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing

Arrdy Engineering Innovatins (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

deduction for R & D expenditure in respect of both revenue and capital expenditure as provided U/s. 35(1)(i) and (iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) of the Act which does not provide for any such conditionality. 4 Therefore the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order ... ought to have at least allowed 100% deduction U/s. 35(1)&(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) amounting to Rs. 22,68,131/- instead of the weighted deduction U/s. 35(2AB) as claimed by appellant. 4. Any other ground that the appellant may urge at the time of hearing

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 1(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 80HSection 80I

incorrect assumption that the assessee has claimed deduction towards scientific expenditure under section 35(1)(ii) whereas the assessee has claimed expenditure under section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. The Ld.AR further submitted that it is only as per the provisions of section 35(1)(ii), that the approval ... Centres had to be submitted and since the assessee has claimed deduction under section 35(2)(ia), there was no such requirement. In this M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. regard, the Ld.AR drew our attention to the relevant clause (clause 15(b)) of the Tax Audit Report for the relevant assessment

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

find out whether the claim made by the assessee to get the relief of 100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

find out whether the claim made by the assessee to get the relief of 100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

find out whether the claim made by the assessee to get the relief of 100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiterbioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

find out whether the claim made by the assessee to get the relief of 100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred

DCIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

find out whether the claim made by the assessee to get the relief of 100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred

ACIT, Gulbarga vs. M/S. Jupiter Bioscience Ltd., Bidar

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

find out whether the claim made by the assessee to get the relief of 100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred

Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7187/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. S. Vasudevan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R