TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26,25,000/- from income under the head business. 3. The AO rejected this claim by observing as follows :- "From the submissions of the assessee, it is clear that the assessee made the donation with a motive to get a huge deduction from business income only to reduce the total income for avoiding the payment of tax. Further, the .assessee has failed to substantiate the payment of donation satisfactorily. It is clear that the donation, made by the assessee, was a bogus payment and to get some benefit for which the assessee chose this particular organization and particular FY. The assessee must have got some benefit in lieu of donation payment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Hence, the weighted deduction claimed u/s.35 amounting to Rs. Rs. 26,25,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue number 4/2010 dated 28.01.2010 published in Gazette of India , Part 11, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated 28.01.2010 vide S.O. 348 with effect from 1st April, 207 and shall be deemed that the said notification has not been issued for any tax benefits under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or any other law of the lime being in force [Notification No. 82/2016/F.No.203/64/2009/ITA-ll] Deepshikha Sharma, Director." The above notification makes clear that the earlier notification.No. 4/2010 dated 28.01.2010 shall be deemed not to have been issued for any income- tax benefits under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Health, to the assessee, donation of Rs. 15,00,000/- was made on 31.03.2014 by the assessee. The said amount was given to the donee on 31.03.2014 and withdrawal was on 15.09.2016. i.e. after 17 months from the date of donation made in March, 2014. Such withdrawal in my view cannot take away the vested right of the assessee for claiming deduction under Section 35 (1) of the Act. 6. The Tribunal in the case of Rajda Polymers vide ITA No.333/Kol/2017 order dated 08.11.2017 at page 7 has held as follows :- "5.6. We find that the ld CITA had made an observation which has been heavily relied upon by the ld DR that the assessee's line of business has got nothing to do even remotely with the healthcare or herbal healthcare industry much less i....