| |
| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 3056 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 35(1)(ii)
Section 35(1)(ii) vide its Explanation clearly proves that the assessee would not be affected due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect. Hence, deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of donation made for the scientific research was available to assessee.
|
Business deduction under section 35 - Scientific research - Allowability - Subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect
Assessee claimed deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of donation made to School of Human Genetics & Population Health (SHGPH) for the scientific research after the date of recognition of SHGPH but before the date of withdrawal of said approval by CBDT. AO disallowed said deduction alleging that assessee was engaged in collecting bogus donations. Held: Section 35(1)(ii) vide its Explanation clearly proves that the assessee would not be affected due to subsequent withdrawal of recognition with retrospective effect. Therefore, AO was directed to grant deduction of donation made to SHGPH under section 35(1)(ii) for the scientific research.
Relied:National Leather Cloth Manufacturing Co. v. Indian Council of Agricultual Research and others (2000) 110 Taxman 511 (Bom) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0938 (Bom-HC)
REFERRED : CIT v. Chotatingrai Tea and others (2003) 126 Taxman 399 (SC) : 1980 TaxPub(DT) 1064 (Bom-HC),State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company (1998) 1998 taxmann.com 1747 (SC),DCIT v. M/s. Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 dated 14-3-2018] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1862 (Kol-Trib),Rajda Polymers v. DCIT [ITA No. 333/Kol/2017 for assessment year 2013-14, dated 8-11-2017],Saimed Innovation v. ITO [ITA No. 2231/Kol/2016 for assessment year 2013-14, dated 13-9-2017]
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2013-14 & 2014-15
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|