https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790101 Deduction for donation under section 35(1)(ii) cannot be denied merely because of alleged fraud at the donee's end, where the assessee paid through banking channels to an institution approved at the relevant time and held contemporaneous donation receipts and exemption certificates. The donor is not required to prove the ultimate use of funds by the donee. In the absence of direct evidence of nexus, sham routing, or any cash return to the assessee, third-party allegations against an employee of the donee institution do not invalidate the claim. Fraud must be established by cogent material linking the assessee to the irregularity. en-us Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:30:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790101 Deduction for donation under section 35(1)(ii) cannot be denied merely because of alleged fraud at the donee's end, where the assessee paid through banking channels to an institution approved at the relevant time and held contemporaneous donation receipts and exemption certificates. The donor is not required to prove the ultimate use of funds by the donee. In the absence of direct evidence of nexus, sham routing, or any cash return to the assessee, third-party allegations against an employee of the donee institution do not invalidate the claim. Fraud must be established by cogent material linking the assessee to the irregularity. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 22 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790101