2019 (5) TMI 1323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s challenged the validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Whereas, in grounds no.3 to 8, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 17.50 lakh. Ground no.9 is on the issue of levy of interest under section 234B of the Act. Ground no.10, being general in nature does not require adjudication. 3. At the outset, the learned Authorised Representative expressed his willingness to argue on the grounds raised on merits. Therefore, we proceed to deal with the grounds no.3 to 8, herein after. 4. Brief facts are, the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for the impugned assessment ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....said institution has been cancelled vide order dated 15th September 2016, with retrospective effect, assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be allowed. Accordingly, he added back the amount of Rs. 17.50 lakh to the income of the assessee. 5. The learned Authorised Representative submitted, at the time when the assessee gave donation to the institution, it had a valid registration certificate granted under the Act. He submitted, the subsequent cancellation of the registration certificate with retrospective effect cannot invalidate assessee's claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Drawing our attention to the Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, learned Authorised Representative subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o.29855 of 2018), dated 05.03.2019; ii) PCIT v/s NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.49/2018, dated 17.01.2019; iii) CIT v/s Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd., [2014] 367 ITR 306 (Del.); iv) Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 2015-TIOL-314-SC-IT); v) CIT v/s MAF Academy Pvt. Ltd., 361 ITR 258; vi) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2016] 385 ITR 399 (Cal.); vii) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd. v/s CIT, [2016-TIOL-207-SC-IT-SC]; viii) CIT v/s Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., 30 taxmann. com 292; ix) CIT v/s Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 18 taxmann.com 217; x) CIT v/s Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 458; xi) CIT v/s Fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn;" 8. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that if at the time of giving the donation to the research Institute it had a valid registration granted under the Act, subsequent withdrawal of such approval would not be a reason to deny deduction claimed by the donor. In case of Chotatingrai Tea (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the deduction claimed under section 35CCA of the Act, held that retro....