ASIAN HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEACH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, RANGE 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [for

short “CIT(A)”] dated 18.12.2025,for the assessment year 2014-15. The

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal

a) To delete the disallowance of advertising and business promotion expenses amounting to Rs.1,04,637/-; b) To allow claim of deduction under section 80G amounting to Rs.11,75,000/- and to modify the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.11.2015 declaring income of

Rs. 29.78 Crores. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment

period, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) noted that the assessee has debited

advertisement and business promotion expenses of Rs. 44,27,059/- and Rs.

60,36,666/- respectively. The assessee was asked to substantiate whether

these expenses were incurred for the purpose of business. The assessee was

asked to furnish the name of the parties, PAN No, address and amount of TDS

and nature of services rendered. The AO recorded that, the assessee has not

provided any credible and independently verifiable supporting evidence. In the

absence of verifiable evidence, the AO disallowed only 1.00% of aggregate of

such expenses i.e. Rs. 1,04,637/-.

Rs. 23,50,000/-. The assessee claimed 50% of deduction under Chapter VI-A

of the Act. The assessee was asked to furnish the details and substantiate the

claim with documentary evidence. The AO noted that, the assessee failed to

produce documentary evidence in the form of original donation receipt. The

AO thereby disallowed Rs. 11,75,000/-.

appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee also filed an

application under Rule 46A, for admission of additional evidence in the form of

receipts of donation. The assessee also furnished its detailed written

submission. On the disallowance of advertisement and business promotion

expenses, the assessee submitted that the AO disallowed 1.00% of the

expenses on ad-hoc basis. The AO accepted 99% of the receipt. On the

disallowance of donation, the assessee furnished the copy of receipt of

donation made to Rotary Club Bombay Charities Trust No. 03 of Rs. 1.00 Lakh

and Asian Heart Institute Charitable Trust of Rs. 7,50,000/- and Saurashtra

Medical & Education Charitable Trust of Rs. 15,00,000/-.The submissions of

the assessee were forwarded to the AO for his remand report. The AO

furnished his remand report. In the remand report, the AO objected for

admission of additional evidence. The assessee was also given liberty to

counter the contents of the remand report furnished by the AO.

report of AO and rejoinder there to by the assessee upheld the disallowance of advertisement and promotion expenses by taking view that, the assessee

did not submit party wise details to establish nature of expenses claimed by

the assessee. The AO was justified by making reasonable ad-hoc

disallowance. On disallowance of donation under Section 80G, the Ld.CIT(A)

held that the assessee furnished only receipt of Rs. 1.00 Lakh of Rotary Club

Bombay Charities Trust No. 03 and Rs. 7,50,000/- of Asian Heart Institute and

not furnished any receipt of Saurashtra Medical & Education Charitable Trust,

but failed to furnish corresponding bank statement. The actual disbursement

and genuineness of donation cannot be verified in absence of such

documents. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal

before the Tribunal.

AR’) for the assessee and Learned Senior Departmental Representative (‘Ld.

Sr. DR) for the revenue. Ground No.1, relates to 1.00% disallowance of

advertisement and sale promotion expenses. The Ld. AR of the assessee

submits that, the AO has accepted 99% of the expenses and disallowed only

1.00% of the expenses. There is no logic for making such ad-hoc

disallowance. Against other disallowances of deduction under section 80G, the

Ld. AR of the assessee submits that, before AO the assessee could not furnish

the bank statement and the original receipts. However, before the Ld. CIT(A),

the assessee furnished all such details and also filed an application for

admission of additional evidence. The submission of the assessee and

additional evidence in the form of receipt of donation was forwarded to the AO. The AO objected about the admissibility of the evidence on the ground

that, he has given sufficient opportunity. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits

that he has placed on record copy of all three receipts of donation i.e. receipt

of Rs. 1.00Lakh to Rotary Club Bombay Charities Trust No. 03. Copy of

donation to Asian Heart Institute, BKC of Rs. 7,50,000/- and receipt of Rs.

15,00,000/- to Saurashtra Medical & Education Charitable Trust. The assessee

has also furnished bank statement showing transaction of donation reflecting

the corresponding cheque numbers. All such evidences were furnished in the

remand proceedings before AO. Thus, the assessee has furnished complete

evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the donation. Even otherwise, the

lower authorities have not investigated the fact, except doubting the

transaction.

lower authorities on both the disallowances.

through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Ground No. 01 relates to

disallowance of advertisement and sale promotion expenses. We find that the

AO had made a disallowance of 1.00 % of aggregate of advertisement and

sale promotion expenses by taking view that, the assessee has failed to

furnish the name, address, PAN No. of the persons and nature of services

rendered by them. We find that, before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised the

plea that, the AO made disallowance of 1.00% without bringing any material

on record, that the expenses are not genuine. We find that, the assessee has not discharged its primary onus in furnishing name, address and other details

despite specific show cause notice, either before the AO or before the Ld.

CIT(A) and or before this Tribunal. The assessee has not given the basic

details. Moreover, the AO made symbolic disallowed only @ 1.00%. Thus, we

do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the lower authorities.In

the result, Ground No. 01 is dismissed.

find that the AO made disallowance by taking view that on show cause notice

the assessee failed to produce documentary evidence in the form of original

donation receipt. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO by taking view

that, that the assessee furnished only receipt of Rs. 1.00 Lakh of Rotary Club

Bombay Charities Trust No. 03 and Rs. 7,50,000/- of Asian Heart Institute and

not furnished any receipt of Saurashtra Medical & Education Charitable Trust,

but failed to furnish corresponding bank statement. It was also held that

actual disbursement and genuineness of donation cannot be verified in

absence documents. Before us the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued

that the assessee has furnished copy of receipt of donation given to three

parties namely, Rotary Club Bombay Charities Trust No. 03, Asian Heart

Institute and Saurashtra Medical & Education Charitable Trust, during remand

proceedings, which is also filed before Tribunal. We find that the assessee has

filed copy of donation given to three parties namely, Rotary Club Bombay

Charities, Asian Heart Institute and Saurashtra Medical & Education Charitable

Trust also furnished bank statement showing debit from the bank account of the assessee. On careful consideration of all such evidences, we find that the

assessee has also fully substantiated the genuineness of the donation. The

assessee given aggregate donation of Rs. 23,50,000/-. Thus, the assessee is

eligible for 50% of deduction under Chapter VI-A. Hence, the AO is directed

accordingly. In the result, Ground No. 02 of the appeal is allowed.

Order was pronounced in open Court on 30/06/2026.

\\

Sd/- Sd/- GIRISH AGARWAL PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 30/06/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar/DDO ITAT, Mumbai