<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (10) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6095</link>
    <description>Deduction under s.35CCA for donations to an approved rural development institution was disputed on the ground that the donated amount was allegedly not utilised for an approved programme. The SC held that once the assessee satisfies the statutory conditions for deduction and furnishes the prescribed certificate, there is no legal obligation on the assessee to ensure or prove subsequent utilisation of the funds or that the donee is in fact carrying on the envisaged rural development work; the compliance burden lies within the scheme of s.35CCA and its certification mechanism. The SC further held that the HC exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the Tribunal&#039;s remand order, but upheld the allowance of the deduction and dismissed the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Dec 2025 13:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45178" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6095</link>
      <description>Deduction under s.35CCA for donations to an approved rural development institution was disputed on the ground that the donated amount was allegedly not utilised for an approved programme. The SC held that once the assessee satisfies the statutory conditions for deduction and furnishes the prescribed certificate, there is no legal obligation on the assessee to ensure or prove subsequent utilisation of the funds or that the donee is in fact carrying on the envisaged rural development work; the compliance burden lies within the scheme of s.35CCA and its certification mechanism. The SC further held that the HC exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the Tribunal&#039;s remand order, but upheld the allowance of the deduction and dismissed the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>