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

The decision most relied on for Section 35(1)(ii) is ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299), cited in 76 of the 63 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(ii)

ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.
348 ITR 299 · 2012 · Supreme Court
76
citing judgments

Reassessment under section 147 is not valid if the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion on an issue in the original assessment, even if the reasons for that opinion were not explicitly recorded, unless new tangible material emerges.

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT
91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

S.R.M.M.C.T.M Tiruppani Trust v. CIT
230 ITR 636 · 1998 · Supreme Court
54
citing judgments

Capital expenditure incurred by a trust from its own funds is considered an application of income, entitling the trust to claim exemption under Section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act.

Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd. v. CIT, Gwalior
403 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments

The power to cancel registration granted to a trust is not an implied power under the General Clauses Act and requires express legislative provision. An express power to cancel registration was introduced later via amendment.

CIT v. Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd.
312 ITR 22 · 2009 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Fresh legal claims can be made during assessment or appellate proceedings, and the Assessing Officer should consider these claims for correct deductions after verification.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chotatingrai Tea & Ors.
258 ITR 529 · 2002 · Supreme Court
30
citing judgments

A donor cannot be held responsible for the utilization of their donation by a donee institution once the statutory conditions for claiming a deduction are met. Subsequent withdrawal of approval for the donee institution cannot retrospectively deny the donor the deduction.

CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd.
328 ITR 338 · 2010 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The Tribunal has comprehensive jurisdiction to deal with issues in an appeal and can allow a new ground to be raised, assimilating issues from the CIT (Appeals) order.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
336 ITR 209 · 2011 · High Court
27
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is not maintainable when both the payer and payee are assessed at the maximum marginal rate, as it results in a revenue-neutral situation.

B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT
208 ITR 863 · 1994 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An assessee should not suffer due to a mistake committed by the department, and the withdrawal of approval for a donation to a society should have prospective, not retrospective, effect.

Velankani Information Systems Ltd. v. DCIT
97 Taxmann.com 599 · 2018 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

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

ITA 427/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234BSection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

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)

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)

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)

MULTI MANTECH INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3480/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pallav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

M/S. BODAL CHEMICALS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 104/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

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

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

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)

AAKASH VALUE REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)

RASHMIKANT BHAICHANDBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1112/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rashmikant Bhaichandbhai The Ito बनाम/ Shah Ward-5(3)92) V/S. 31, Jain Society Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pritamnagar, Akhada Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afgps 3047 E (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Advocate Revenue By : Smt.Mamta Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Mamta Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80G

SIMRAN MOTORS PVT.LTD,PANVEL vs. DCIT CIRCLE , PANVEL

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

ITA 1071/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 5401/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 35A

SHIVI MUKESH KUMAR ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5293/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshivi Mukesh Kumar Acit, Circle 22(1) D-1402, Hubtown Seasons, Mumbai Next To Fine Arts Society, Vs. Ramakrishna Chemburkar Marg, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Pan/Gir No. Aqapk 9881 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate & Ms. Vinita A. Nara – Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Appearing For The Assessee Specifically Drew Our Attention To Ground No. 6, Which Reads As Under: 6. The Sanction U/S. 151 Is Bad In Law & As A Result, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Bad In Law. 3. Referring To This Ground, Ld. Counsel Submitted, At The Very Outset, This Issue May Be Considered And, If Warranted The Other Issues Can Be Taken Up Thereafter. As Could Be Seen

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 35(1)(ii)

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2286/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

A.K. EXPORTERS,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 32,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 2285/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 256Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35C

COSMOS ENGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TAYLORMADE RENEWABLES LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 418/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 35(1)(ii)

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4