9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1615 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance made u/s 35(1)(ii) - withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect - claim weighted deduction of 175% of the amounts actually paid by such beneficiaries - HELD THAT - The provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act vide its Explanation clearly proves that the donor (i.e assessee herein) cannot be affected due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect. Respectfully following NATIONAL LEATHER CLOTH MANUFACTURING CO. VERSUS INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTUAL RESEARCH AND OTHERS 1999 (10) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and the provisions of the Act, we direct the AO to grant deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act in the sums of ₹ 26,25,000/- and ₹ 21,00,000/- for the Asst Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for both the years are allowed. Charging of interest u/s 234B is consequential in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
Issues:
1. Disallowance under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act for scientific research organization donation. 2. Effect of subsequent withdrawal of recognition by CBDT on weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii). 3. Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act. Issue 1: Disallowance under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act for scientific research organization donation: The appeals involved the disallowance made under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for donations made to a scientific research organization, School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHGPH). The Assessing Officer (AO) relied on a survey report indicating bogus donation transactions by SHGPH. The assessee provided various documents to support the claim, including donation details, money receipts, bank statements, and approvals received by SHGPH. The AO disallowed the claimed amount, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee argued that there was no evidence of cash receipts against donation cheques and that the recognition of SHGPH was valid during the donation period. Issue 2: Effect of subsequent withdrawal of recognition by CBDT on weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii): The key point was whether the subsequent withdrawal of recognition by CBDT affected the assessee's entitlement to weighted deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where it was held that the payer should not be affected if the recognition granted to the payee was withdrawn after the donation. Citing relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not be denied the deduction due to the retrospective withdrawal of SHGPH's recognition. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was deleted, and the appeals of the assessee were allowed for both assessment years. Issue 3: Charging of interest under section 234B of the Act: The issue of charging interest under section 234B of the Act was considered consequential and did not require specific adjudication. The Tribunal mentioned that the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard were general in nature and did not need detailed consideration. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the interest charged under section 234B was upheld. In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeals and directing the AO to grant the deduction under section 35(1)(ii) for the relevant assessment years. The judgment emphasized the legal provisions, documentary evidence, and precedents to support its decision, highlighting the importance of recognizing the validity of donations made to approved scientific research organizations.
|
