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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.45

Section 35(1)(ii) 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)(ii) is ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. (348 ITR 299), cited in 76 of the 329 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

Reopening assessment based on a mere re-look of accounts already furnished and assessed under section 143(3) is not permissible if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that income has escaped assessment merely by re-examining previously filed accounts.

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

A High Court cannot cancel the registration of a scientific research association retrospectively. Therefore, a deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) based on such a cancelled registration must be allowed.

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

Interest paid on delayed remittances of service tax is compensatory in nature and not a penalty hit by the Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it a allowable business expenditure.

Judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)

Dyaneshwar Ssk Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid as the case may be

ITA 1090/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1090/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dyaneshwar Ssk Ltd., A/P Dyneshwar Nagar (Bhende), Taluka: Nevasa, Ahmednagar-414603. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaas4092H बनाम / V/S. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Pune Dated 07.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Allowing The Cane Purchase Price Actually Paid By The Appellant & By Holding That Excess Payment Over Frp Constitutes Distribution Of Profit. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & Without Prejudice To Ground No.1 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deducting The Amount Of Harvesting & Transport From The Fair Remunerative Price For Arriving At The Excess Cane Purchase Price To Be Disallowed.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Smt. Shabana Parveen
Section 35(1)(ii)Section 80P(2)(a)

Jediv Cargo Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee

ITA 1824/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Jediv Cargo Management V/S. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Pvt. Ltd., Unit 802, P.S. Aayakar Bhawan, Continental Building, 8Th Kolkta-700 069 Floor, 83/2/1 Topsia Road, Kolkat-46 [Pan No.Aaccj 0464 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radhey Shyam Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-04-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2018 Passed In Case No. 1444/Cit(A)-4/2015-16, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Sent The Assessee An Rpad Notice Dated 27.08.2018 For Today’S Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee. The Case Is Now Taken Up Adjudication On Merits. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities Action Disallowing Its Sec. 35(1)(Ii) Deduction Claim Of Donation Of ₹8.75 Lac Made To School Of Human Genetics & Population

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