INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (1), AHMEDABAD
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's admission of a fictitious donation, which was returned in cash, distinguished the case from relied-upon precedents. The assessee failed to controvert these facts or provide supporting material.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 8,75,000/- under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act for a donation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim based on the assessee's admission that the donation was fictitious and the amount was returned in cash.
What were the issues?
Whether a deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) is allowable for a donation admitted to be fictitious and returned in cash.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- B.P.Agarwalls & Sons Ltd. v. CIT27 citing208 ITR 863 · 1994 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh
PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, arises from order of the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad dated 10-08-2017, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.
The solitary ground of appeal is pertained to the issue of disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s. 35(1)(iii) of Rs. 8,75,000/-.
I.T.A No. 2446/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 2
The fact in brief is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the act was finalized on 30th December, 2016. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer has noticed that assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the act @175% i.e. Rs. 8,75,0000/- on donation of Rs. 5 lacs given to Hervicure 1999 and Agarwalla & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT & Others (1994) 208 ITR 863 dated 5th July, 1993. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative has supported the order of lower authorities.
We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the act at the rate of I.T.A No. 2446/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 3 175% on giving donation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Herbicure Bio Herbal Research. The assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deduction on the basis of admission of the assesee that donation was fictitious and the donated amount was returned to the assessee by cash. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the facts of the case of the assessee are distinguishable from the facts pertained to the judicial pronouncement referred by the assessee since the assessee has admitted before the assessing officer that the impugned addition was made fictitiously which was returned in cash to the assessee. The assessee could not controvert these facts during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and also failed to disprove the admission made before the assessing officer with any relevant supporting material at the time of appellate proceedings before us. In view the above facts, we consider that assessee has categorically admitted before the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings that donation was fictitious and the same was returned to it in cash, therefore, we do not find any substance in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is rejected.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15-11-2019 (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 15/11/2019
I.T.A No. 2446/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 Page No 4 आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
Assessee
Revenue
Concerned CIT
CIT (A)
DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद
More judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)
- ACIT-19(3), Mumbai vs Zeenat Shafique Jagani, MumbaiITA 3721/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15
- High Volt Electricals Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, PalgharITA 3049/MUM/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-2017
- Vijay Transtech Private Limited, Mumbai vs ACIT Circle-11(3)(2), MumbaiITA 2644/MUM/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-2017
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Torrent Power Limited, AhmedabadITA 1117/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Torrent Power Limited, AhmedabadITA 1076/AHD/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Aug 2026AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026