Section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(i) is Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 323), cited in 130 of the 32 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(i)

Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 323 · 2010 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

Membership rights and business contracts, as 'business or commercial rights of similar nature' to a license or franchise, qualify as intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. DCIT
345 ITR 421 · 2012 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Business contracts and commercial rights of similar nature qualify as intangible assets under Section 32(1)(ii) and are eligible for depreciation. The decision also affirms that goodwill is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation.

CIT v. IBM India Ltd.
357 ITR 88 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Expenditure on application software, which enhances business efficiency and requires a computer system to function, constitutes revenue expenditure rather than acquisition of a capital asset, even if it provides an enduring benefit.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pr.CIT
162 ITD 484 · 2017 · ITAT
47
citing judgments

The approval of an in-house R&D centre through Form 3CM is the primary document for claiming weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) for scientific research expenditure. The case clarifies the significance of this form and the role of the prescribed authority (DSIR) in the approval process.

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.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar
74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MSIL) v. Addl. CIT, TPO
328 ITR 210 · 2010 · High Court
39
citing judgments

AMP expenditure is not an international transaction. The Bright Line Test is not a valid basis for determining the existence of an international transaction or computing the arm's length price.

CIT v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
250 Taxmann 270 · 2017 · High Court
34
citing judgments
CIT v. Gokal Das Images Private Limited
429 ITR 526 · 2020 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot be added back when computing book profit under Section 115JB, as Section 115JB is a complete code in itself.

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.

Judgments on Section 35(1)(i)

Showing 120 of 32 · Page 1 of 2