Section 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.45

Section 35(2AB) 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(2AB) is CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (378 ITR 57), cited in 304 of the 842 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 35(2AB)

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

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.

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
340 ITR 477 · 2012 · High Court
213
citing judgments

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.
326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court
196
citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

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.

CIT v. Sadan Vikas (India) Ltd.
335 ITR 117 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is allowable for R&D expenditure incurred even if the approval from the DSIR is granted in a subsequent assessment year, provided the application for approval was made in time. The assessee is entitled to the deduction if the approval is based on verification of details submitted.

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. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
142 ITR 493 · 1983 · High Court
95
citing judgments

Pure reimbursement of expenditure does not constitute income in the nature of royalty or fees for technical services, therefore eliminating the obligation to deduct tax at source.

Judgments on Section 35(2AB)

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Jyoti Cnc Automation Limited, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 224/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 222, 223 & 224/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Assistant Commissioner Of Jyoti Cnc Automation Limited, Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Rajkot, Plot No. G-506, Lodhika Gidc, Vs. Room No.502, Aayakar Bhavan, Kalawad Road, Village Metoda, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360021 Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj1947R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit Dr & Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2026 14/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 08.12.2025, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT DR and Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Jyoti Cnc Automation Limited, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 223/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 222, 223 & 224/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Assistant Commissioner Of Jyoti Cnc Automation Limited, Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Rajkot, Plot No. G-506, Lodhika Gidc, Vs. Room No.502, Aayakar Bhavan, Kalawad Road, Village Metoda, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360021 Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj1947R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit Dr & Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2026 14/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 08.12.2025, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT DR and Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

ACIT Circle-1(1), Rajkot vs. Jyoti Cnc Automation Limited, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 222/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 222, 223 & 224/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 ] Assistant Commissioner Of Jyoti Cnc Automation Limited, Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Rajkot, Plot No. G-506, Lodhika Gidc, Vs. Room No.502, Aayakar Bhavan, Kalawad Road, Village Metoda, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot, Rajkot Gujarat 360021 Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj1947R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Biren Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit Dr & Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2026 14/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years (Ays) 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 08.12.2025, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT DR and Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C