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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.45

Section 35(1)(iv) 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)(iv) is Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT (177 ITR 377), cited in 275 of the 234 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 35(1)(iv)

Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT
177 ITR 377 · 1989 · Supreme Court
275
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides a commercial advantage of an enduring nature may still be classified as revenue expenditure if its purpose is to facilitate existing trading operations, improve business efficiency, or upgrade existing products, depending on the specific context and objective.

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.

Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
21 Taxmann.com 483 · 2012 · ITAT
46
citing judgments

When computing profits of an eligible unit for tax incentives, profits attributable to marketing and R&D activities carried out outside the eligible unit should not be demarcated or excluded. The re-computation of deductions under tax holiday sections is justified only when there is an arrangement to earn more than ordinary profits.

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.

Digital Equipment India Ltd. v. DCIT
103 TTJ 329 · 2006 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A mere substantial profit does not inherently indicate an arrangement to earn profits beyond ordinary levels to abuse tax concessions under Section 80-IA(9) or (10). The Assessing Officer must provide specific evidence of such an arrangement.

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.

10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rose Services Apartment India P. Ltd.
326 ITR 100 · 2010 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to consider claims for losses under any provision of the Act, even if not initially raised in the return of income, when deciding an appeal. This is due to the Tribunal's plenary powers under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act.

Addl. CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan
10 SOT 74 · 2006 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot arbitrarily adjust the profit margin of a specific unit by comparing it to the overall profit margin of the assessee, especially when the units have different business natures and separate books of accounts are maintained.

CIT v. National Rayon Corp. Ltd.
140 ITR 143 · 1983 · High Court
17
citing judgments

Expenditure on product development may be treated as capital expenditure, leading to disallowance of weighted deduction claimed under Section 35(2AB) for in-house scientific research.

CIT v. M/s. Schmetz India Pvt. Ltd.
211 Taxmann 59 · 2012 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 35(1)(iv)

High Energy Batteries India Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2 (3), Chennai

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

ITA 1258/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1258/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 High Energy Batteries India Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No. 13, Esvin House, Old Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), Mahabalipuram Road, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 096. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaach1479H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1.1 The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Allowing Only Depreciation @15% On Bolero Van As Against The Claim By The Appellant That It Should Be Totally Allowed As An Expenditure. 1.2 The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Note That Since The Vehicle Is Being Used For Research & Development Its Entire Cost Is Entitled For 100% Deduction U/S.35(1)(Iv) Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35(1)(iv)