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)

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 1716/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1716/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., Income Tax, No. 3, Narbavi, Lakshmanan Street, Corporate Circle 1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc2667F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Revenue Was Prevented By 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 35Section 356Section 80I

M/S Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-1, Chennai

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

ITA 757/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 757/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Carborundum Universal Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 43, Vi Floor, Parry House, Moore Income Tax, Street, Chennai G.P.O. Parrys, Ltu-1, Chennai, Chennai 600 001. Nfac, New Delhi. [Pan:Aaacc2474P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 27.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 30.11.2011 Admitting A Total Income Of ₹.117,65,52,629/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 923Ca Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 4Section 43A