TARINI INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 9(1),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 211/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 June 2026AY 2013-201414 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the donation was made through banking channels to an organization approved under Section 35(1)(ii) at the time of donation. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) for a donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- to SHGPH. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, treating the donation as bogus based on statements from SHGPH personnel admitting to refunding donations after deducting charges.

What were the issues?

Whether the weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) is allowable for a donation made to an institution which later admitted to malpractices and had its registration cancelled.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(1)(ii),Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA

Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 22.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Assessment Year : 2013-2014

Tarini Infrastructure Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward 9(1), Kolkata, Room No. 12, 1st Floor, 12A, P-7, Chowringhee Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata - Square, Esplanade, 700001 Kolkata - 700069 [PAN: AACCT3687K] APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Ramesh Patodia, Adv. Revenue by : Archana Gupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 17.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2026

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 24.11.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082941200(1) challenging the sole issue raised regarding donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- to School of Human Genetics and Population and Health (hereinafter referred to as “SHGPH”) for denying deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act.

2 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 12.09.2013 declaring income of Rs. 2,60,354/-. The return was processed later on it was found that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- to donation to SHGPH and claimed weighted deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act of Rs. 43,75,000/- being 175% of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the assessee under Section 148 of the Act after taking necessary approval from the competent authority for reopening the assessment. In response, the assessee filed return on 25.08.2017. Further, it was noted that the Secretary, Treasurer, Brokers and other concerned persons on the said organization in their statement recorded on oath, had admitted that the donation which the organisation used to receive were refunded to the concerned doners after deducting the charges and it is bogus donation by taking false expenses after returning their certain percentage . It was also noted that the list was provided by school of SHGPH during the survey including the name of the assessee. It was also conveyed that the said institution had admitted before the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission that it had accepted cheques loans donation and refunded after deducting small amount for their service charges and accordingly, it had offered its income only in the form of service charges before Settlement Commission by ignoring all the donations and corresponding bogus/fictitious payment. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to

3 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited the assessee dated 15.11.2018 asking it to explain as to why the weighted deduction amounting to Rs. 43,75,000/- claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act should not be disallowed, the assessee was also provided chance to establish that the donation is ingenuine. In this regard, no reply was issued by the assessee. AO has quoted the relevant part of the statement recorded during the survey in his order. After considering the entire submission documents available before him the deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of Rs. 43,75,000/- was added back to the income of the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.

4.

The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and further submitted that the amount was transferred through banking channel RTGS and in in this regard complete details were filed. During the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings and further submitted that the SHGPH registration was cancelled in the year 2016 but the donation was given in A.Y. 2012-13 and admitted that on similar set of facts the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Kolkata has dismissed the appeal of the

4 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited Revenue in ITAT/164/2025, IA No. GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025 in the case of PCIT Vs. Kanya Kumari Properties Ltd. in which the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the appeal of the revenue. In addition to the above, he relied on the following submissions:

5 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

6 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

7 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

8 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

9 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

10 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

11 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited

5.

In addition to the above, the Ld. Counsel submitted that on the similar set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Kolkata in the above mentioned case has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee and further in the case of DCIT-Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai Vs.

12 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited Sopariwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 6327/Mum/2019) decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

6.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that the donation is not genuine , first there is no doubt that the assessee has transferred money through banking channel to the SHGPH and secondary the amount was received back after deducting 7 to 8% on donation to the assessee. During the course of survey proceedings key person have accepted in their statement that they are involved in malpractices for accepting donation and returning money to the concerned doner for benefitted to them. Before the settlement commission the key person have offered their commission income .Accordingly, the Revenue has cancelled the registration in the year 2016.

7.

Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and order of authorities below. I noted during the impugned assessment year, the assessee has given donation of Rs. 25,00,000/- and assessee claimed weighted deduction @ 175% of the donation amount. The AO treated as bogus donation since the SHGPH is involved in malpractices and returning money to the doners after taking commission (charges), a similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Kolkata in the case of PCIT Vs. Kanya

13 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited Kumari Properties Ltd. (noted supra), order dated 09.01.2026 in which it has been held as under:

“In this case the relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The assessee has donated a sum of a Rs.2,50,00,000/- via RTGS which is apparent from the documents filed by the assessee i.e. the ledger, bank book and bank statement and produced before the Assessing Officer, CIT (Appeal) and the Tribunal. So, it is apparent that the assessee did not make payments to an unknown person but to an organization approved by the Central Government u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the department that the recognition of the research institution namely HHBRF was cancelled in the year 2016. As such, this donation relates to the assessment year 2012-13 and the payment of Rs.2,50,00,000/- is disclosed in audited account and deduction claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. On the above facts, we do not find any substantial questions of law arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application IA GA/2/2025 stands dismissed.” 8. I further observed from the case law relied by the Ld. Counsel of the Co-ordinate Bench cited (supra), similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.

9.

Respectfully following the above judgment, I delete the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 22.06.2026.

Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Dated: 22.06.2026 AK, Sr. P.S.

14 ITA No. 211/KOL/2026 Tarini Infrastructure Private Limited Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)

All 329 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35(1)(ii) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →