Forum
Read and express views
× Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India

These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.

06-06-2019, Manoj Kumar Agarwal, Section 35(1)(iii), 35(1), 35, Tribunal Jaipur

  • amit
  • amit's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
3 months 1 week ago #9696 by amit
Section - 35(1)(iii), 35(1), 35, 12A, 21
Order Date - 06-06-2019
Favouring - Assessee
Court - Tribunal Jaipur
Appellant - Manoj Kumar Agarwal
Respondent - DCIT
Justice - RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & VIJAY PAL RAO, JM
Citation - 619Taxpundit112
Appeal No. - ITA No. 1272/JP/2018
Asstt. Year - 2013-14

Order

PER : R.C. SHARMA A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 11/09/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in the matter of denial of claim of deduction U/s 35(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on account of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health.

2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this case, the assessee has claimed deduction U/s 35(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of donation given to School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The A.O. declined the claim of deduction on the plea that the institution is not genuine. By the impugned order, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance and the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee Shri M.L. Borad that during the year under consideration, the assessee had made a donation to School of Human Genetics & Population Health, an institute which is engaged in scientific research and duly notified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in terms of Section 35(1)(iii) of the Act vide notification No.4/2010 dated 28/01/2010. He further contended that the institute to whom the assessee has donated was in existence and notified during the relevant F.Y. 2012-13. As per the ld AR the CBDT has rescinded notification on 15/9/2016 which was retrospective from 01/4/2007 but the institute was validly recognized by the CBDT on the date of donation. As per the ld AR the approval so granted to the institute was very much in force at the time of donation and the assessee had no reason to disbelieve the operation of approval and notification of the institute. He further argued that the subsequent notification by the CBDT rescinding the approval retrospectively will not affect the claim of the assessee in so far as there was no information with the assessee regarding non genuinity or not observing the standard fixed by the CBDT for making eligible itself for deduction U/s 35 of the Act. Accordingly, it was argued that the assessee's act was in a bonafide manner and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharastra, it was argued that no additional tax burden can be put on the assessee by making retrospective operations of certain notifications or withdrawal of notifications. As per the ld AR, the retrospective effect can be given only for the beneficial amendments but not to put the additional burden on the assessee. He further argued that explanation to Section 35(1) of the Act also provides that deduction to association to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, referred to in clause (ii) and (iii) has been withdrawn.

4. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the huge amount of donation given by the assessee, who is a salaried person, is not genuine and that exemption granted to the School of Human Genetics & Population Health has been withdrawn by the CBDT with retrospective effect, therefore, the A.O. was justified in declining the assessee’s claim of deduction of donation so made.

5. We have considered the rival contention and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and find from the record that during the year under consideration the assessee had claimed deduction for the donation given to School of Human Genetics and Population Health which was declined by the A.O.. The issue of allowability of deduction in respect of donation to School of Human Genetics and Population Health is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT in ITA No. 529/JP/2018 order dated 05/07/2018 and also the decision of the Coordinate bench of Kolkata in the case of DCIT Vs Maco Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 16/Kol/2017 order dated 14/3/2018. The precise observation of the Tribunal in the case of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra) was as under:

“7. The Bench have heard both the sides on the issues raised in appeal, perused the material available on the record and also considered the case laws relied upon. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing of rolled steel products. Return of income was filed electronically on 26/09/2014. The assessee has claimed weighted deduction U/s 35(1) (ii) of the Act. The assessee had made donation to an institute engaged in

Click to view and download Full Free Judgement of Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT

Unable to display Google Map.




Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.141 seconds

If You Appreciate What We Do Here On TaxPundit, You Should Consider:

We are thankful for your never ending support.

Latest Analysis - High Courts

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur

PCIT vs. Sahara States Gorakhpur Read More
GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT Read More
Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT

Jugender Singh Yadav vs. PCIT Read More
ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT

ROHIT KUMAR GUPTA vs PCIT Read More
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41

Forum Features

Latest Case Laws
Latest Case Laws are instantly updated in the Forum into their respective section
Latest from CBDT
Latest Circulars, Notifications, Orders etc. from CBDT is updated in the Forum
Ask Experts
You can ask questions to the community
Support
Support queries are either replied via mail or in the Forum so that others can be benefited
Press Releases
Latest Press Notes and Press Releases are updated in the Forum
Connect with Members
You can connect with our community members by replying to their queries

Recommended Articles

 

SITE INFORMATION

All content herein is the copyright of Taxpundit. No images, text, or any other content may be, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of Taxpundit.

All Rights Reserved. All Content Copyright.

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special offers!

Company Master Data Since 1900. More than 1.75 Million Records. Register/Login to get FREE access. Read more
Toggle Bar