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)

Venus Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of assessee for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 are allowed, while that for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITSSA 18/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleit(Ss)A Nos. 16 To 19/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Venus Corporation, Vs. Dcit, 51, Sardar Patel Nagar, B/H. Central Circle 1(3), Navrangpura Tele Exchange, Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aacfv 6507 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Arising Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad Of Even Date I.E. 20.09.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Venus Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of assessee for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 are allowed, while that for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITSSA 17/AHD/2022[2016-17 ]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2023

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleit(Ss)A Nos. 16 To 19/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Venus Corporation, Vs. Dcit, 51, Sardar Patel Nagar, B/H. Central Circle 1(3), Navrangpura Tele Exchange, Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aacfv 6507 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Arising Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad Of Even Date I.E. 20.09.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Venus Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of assessee for AYs 2014-15 and 2016-17 are allowed, while that for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITSSA 16/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleit(Ss)A Nos. 16 To 19/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Venus Corporation, Vs. Dcit, 51, Sardar Patel Nagar, B/H. Central Circle 1(3), Navrangpura Tele Exchange, Ahmedabad Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aacfv 6507 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”), Arising Out Of Separate Orders Passed By The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad Of Even Date I.E. 20.09.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017- 18 & 2018-19, Respectively.

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153A

M/S H.K.Dutta & Co., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-37, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2384/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2384/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. H.K. Dutta & Co. Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata 106, B.B. Ganguly Street, Bowbazar Vs Kolkata - 700012 [Pan : Aaefh3361D] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-11, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/08/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dt. 23/02/2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Who Disallowed Claim Of Assessee For Weighted Deduction U/S 35(1)(Ii) Amounting To Rs. 26,25,000/- @ 175% In Respect Of Donation Of Rs. 15,00,000/- To School Of Human Genetics & Population. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Allowing The Addition On Account Of Under Valuation Of Closing Stock Made By Ao & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 8,77,921/- By Making His Own Calculation. 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,05,57,773/- U/S 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 2

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)Section 40A(3)Section 69