RAJIV KUMAR GANERIWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-31(4), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1644/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 January 2020AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the assessee's sole grievance regarding the Section 35(1)(ii) deduction to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on the lower authorities' findings and the assessee's submission to await the outcome of an investigation concerning the donee's KYC norms.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) for a donation of Rs. 13,00,000, which was disallowed by the lower authorities. The assessee argued that the issue should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Section 35(1)(ii) deduction was justified, and if the matter should be remanded for further investigation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35(1)(ii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A(SMC

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

The assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Kolkata’s order dated 23.05.2019 passed in the case No. 440/CIT(A)-9/Wd-31(4)/2014-15/Kol, involving proceedings under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing section 35(1)(ii) deduction amounting to Rs.22,75,000/- at the rate 175% of the donation of Rs.13,00,000/-.

3.

Mr. Kochar sought to emphasize on the ld. CIT(Appeals) findings at pages 2 to 6 that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in the case of Society for Welfare of the Handicapped Persons & Another –vs.- Union of Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Rajiv Kumar Ganeriwala India Writ Petition No. 8452 (W) of 2015 has directed to carry out the necessary investigation pertaining to the donee’s KYC norms. His case therefore is that the above sole issue deserves to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to proceed afresh after final outcome of the said investigation process. The Revenue is equally fair in not disputing all these averments. I, therefore, restore the assessee’s sole grievance under section 35(1)(ii) to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per law in the above terms.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on January 31, 2020.

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 →