https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467886 Deduction under section 35(1)(ii) was held allowable where the assessee donated to an institution whose approval was in force at the time of payment. The Tribunal found that payment through banking channels, supported by receipts and bank statements, established the contribution, and the Revenue produced no cogent evidence that the donation was routed back or otherwise sham. A later withdrawal of the institution's approval, even if retrospective, could not by itself defeat a claim that was valid when the payment was made because the statutory framework did not permit retrospective unsettlement of such vested compliance. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable and the deduction was allowed. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:15:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467886 Deduction under section 35(1)(ii) was held allowable where the assessee donated to an institution whose approval was in force at the time of payment. The Tribunal found that payment through banking channels, supported by receipts and bank statements, established the contribution, and the Revenue produced no cogent evidence that the donation was routed back or otherwise sham. A later withdrawal of the institution's approval, even if retrospective, could not by itself defeat a claim that was valid when the payment was made because the statutory framework did not permit retrospective unsettlement of such vested compliance. The disallowance was therefore unsustainable and the deduction was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467886