<?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>2025 (10) TMI 89 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779293</link>
    <description>ITAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal, holding that a donation made to a school of human genetics and population was deductible under the Act despite later withdrawal of the institution&#039;s approval. Relying on the Explanation to s.35AC and consistent precedents, the Tribunal found that where the assessee acted upon valid approval at the time of payment, subsequent cancellation-even with retrospective effect-does not defeat the deduction under s.35AC (and s.35(1)(ii)).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 89 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779293</link>
      <description>ITAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal, holding that a donation made to a school of human genetics and population was deductible under the Act despite later withdrawal of the institution&#039;s approval. Relying on the Explanation to s.35AC and consistent precedents, the Tribunal found that where the assessee acted upon valid approval at the time of payment, subsequent cancellation-even with retrospective effect-does not defeat the deduction under s.35AC (and s.35(1)(ii)).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779293</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>