Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (5) TMI 1323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Whereas, in grounds no.3 to 8, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 17.50 lakh. Ground no.9 is on the issue of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground no.10, being general in nature does not require adjudication. 3. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative expressed his willingness to argue on the grounds raised on merits. Therefore, we proceed to deal with the grounds no.3 to 8, herein after. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 29th September 2012, declaring total income of Rs. 44,09,416 after claiming .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ospective effect, assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be allowed. Accordingly, he added back the amount of Rs. 17.50 lakh to the income of the assessee. 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, at the time when the assessee gave donation to the institution, it had a valid registration certificate granted under the Act. He submitted, the subsequent cancellation of the registration certificate with retrospective effect cannot invalidate assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Drawing our attention to the Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, learned Authorised Representative submitted, the statute has also made it clear that the benefit of deduction under section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /s Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del.); iv) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 2015-TIOL-314-SC-IT); v) CIT v/s MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 258; vi) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2016] 385 ITR 399 (Cal.); vii) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2016-TIOL-207-SC-IT-SC]; viii) CIT v/s Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 30 taxmann. com 292; ix) CIT v/s Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 18 taxmann.com 217; x) CIT v/s Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 458; xi) CIT v/s Frostair Pvt. Ltd., 26 taxmann.com 11; xii) CIT v/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Del.); xiii) CIT v/s Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd., 366 ITR 110; xiv) CIT v/s Focus Expor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... her institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn;" 8. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that if at the time of giving the donation to the research Institute it had a valid registration granted under the Act, subsequent withdrawal of such approval would not be a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor. In case of Chotatingrai Tea (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the deduction claimed under section 35CCA of the Act, held that retrospective withdrawal of approval granted by the prescribed authority would not invalidate assessee's claim of deduction. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Trading Co. (supra) while dealing with the issue .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... io laid down in the decisions discussed above, we have no hesitation in holding that assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance of Rs. 17.50 lakh. As regards the decisions cited by the learned Departmental Representative, on a careful perusal of these decisions, we find them decisions to be factually distinguishable as they are not on the issue of denial of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to cancellation of registration with retrospective effect. Grounds are allowed. 9. In view of our decision herein above, the issue raised in grounds no.1 and 2, having become academic, hence, do not require adjudication. 10. Ground no.9, being consequential does not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates