BHAVESH ARUNKUMAR SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT -19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 720/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 March 2022AY 2012-1312 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) as the payee institution was approved at the time of donation. The subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the assessee's claim, following established judicial precedents.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 52,50,000/- for a donation made to M/s Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHBRF) under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this donation as bogus based on information that HHBRF was providing accommodation entries for donations.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) when the payee institution's approval was withdrawn retrospectively after the donation was made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(1)(ii),Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 08.03.2022Pronounced: 23.03.2022

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in not considering that the assumption of juri iction by the Ld. Assessing Officer is bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act have Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai. not been fulfilled.

2.

On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35(1)(ii)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →