Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.45

Section 35(1) falls under section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 45 (Expenditure on scientific research) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 45 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1) is M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others (184 ITR 123), cited in 20 of the 69 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)

M/s Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. and Another v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Others
184 ITR 123 · 1990 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The withdrawal of approval for a deduction, such as under Section 35CCA, cannot be given retrospective effect, and any reassessment notice based on such a retrospective cancellation is invalid. An assessee should not suffer due to the department's mistakes, and withdrawal of approval can only be prospective.

CIT v. Bhartia Culter Hammer Co.
232 ITR 785 · 1998 · High Court
20
citing judgments

An assessee should not suffer due to the department's mistake. If a donation to an approved society is genuine, retrospective withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's right to deduction. Withdrawal of approval can only be prospective.

CIT v. M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd.
211 Taxmann 59 · 2012 · High Court
16
citing judgments
CIT v. Digital Global Soft Ltd.
354 ITR 489 · 2013 · High Court
16
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax can only exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 if an order passed by the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers solely on the ground that an order is erroneous.

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT
77 Taxmann.com 202 · 2017 · Reported
15
citing judgments
184 ITR 123, CIT v. Bhartia Cutler Hammer Co.
236 ITR 644 · 1999 · Reported
11
citing judgments

An assessee should not suffer due to a mistake by the department. Withdrawal of approval for a society, even if permissible, must have prospective effect and cannot disentitle an assessee to a deduction for genuine donations made prior to withdrawal.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. General Magnets Ltd.
256 ITR 471 · 2002 · High Court
11
citing judgments

When approval for a deduction is withdrawn with retrospective effect, the order of the assessing officer cannot be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the assessee should not suffer for a mistake made by the department. There is no provision for withdrawal of recognition under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act.

Madras in CIT v. Celebrity Fashion Ltd.
119 Taxmann.com 426 · 2020 · High Court
10
citing judgments

A disallowance under section 14A is bad in law without a finding that expenditure has a relation to exempt income and without recording satisfaction.

PCIT v. Harpreet Kaur
88 Taxmann.com 641 · 2017 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Kearney India (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (
141 ITD 456 · ITAT
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 35(1)

Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Solapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14, Solapur

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

ITA 3319/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Vitthal Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Acit, Circle 1, A/P Gursale, Tal. Pandharpur, Vs. Solapur Dist. Solapur – 413304 Pan: Aaaas3892H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Department By : Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. Cit Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-07-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35(1)Section 37

Ajeet Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 19/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No.19/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ajeet Seeds Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, 3-6-327, Doshi Chamber, Aurangabad Block No.204, Hyderguda, Hyderabad 500 029 Telangana Pan : Aacca3455G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 35

Shree Kuldevi Bahudha Mataji De vs. Than Trust, Patanvs.the CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 298/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Shangvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-D.R
Section 10Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 35Section 80G

Tarachand Gupta Foundation, Nashik vs. ITO Exemption Ward1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2539/PUN/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2539/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24 Tarachand Gupta Foundation, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.24, Jaipur House, Exemption Ward-1(1), College Road, Parijat Nagar, Nashik Bhonsala Military School, B.O., Nashik 422005 Maharashtra Pan : Aabtt4138P Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Rajendra Agiwal
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Surindersingh J.Narula, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 129/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

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

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)

M/S Vardhman Polytex Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 542/CHANDI/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Aggarwal, CA (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(II)Section 35(1)(ii)

Nadia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nadia vs. The Ld. Pr. CIT, Kolkata 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata01 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathancathy Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5 (2), Kolkata Model House, 3Rd Floor, Room No.10, 40, Strand Road, Kolkata-700001 Aadcc 5211 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 28.03.2023, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051484765(1) For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That In The Course Of Assessment The Ao Had Disallowed The Assessee'S Donation Of Rs.7 Lakhs Made To M/S Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (Hhbrf) Which Have The Approval U/S.35(1)(Ii) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That Consequently The Disallowance Made Was To An Extent Of Rs.12,25,000/-. It Was The Submission That On Appeal, Ld. Cit(A) Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee Nor The Reply To The Remand Report Confirmed

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

Alp Overseas Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-20, New Delhi

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

ITA 2356/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Alp Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25/3, Anbrose House, Central Circle -20, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pin 1100 08 Pan No. Aaacg6366L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CA & Shri AdityaFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 37(1)

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)

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)

Envision Scientific Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 228/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 234BSection 270ASection 32ASection 35

Pudumjee Paper Products Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 336/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Sinha
Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35(1)

Gramin Vibhag Shramik Shikshan Sanstha Palghar, Maharashtra vs. Exemption Ward, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwant Gupta, C.A. & Astin Meachery, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT, D/R
Section 10Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1330/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

DCIT Circle 8, Pune vs. Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 96/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

Mahle Anand Thermal Systems Private Limited, Pune vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

DCIT, Circle-8, Pune vs. Mahale Anand Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal and the CO filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R D OnkarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

Adarsh Paramedical Welfare Association, Bhiwani vs. CIT (Exemptions) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2836/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)