2020 (5) TMI 667

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s), Hubli is not justified in rejecting the claim for expenditure amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- being the amount of contribution paid to The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary for Hampi Utsay. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Hubli is not justified in treating the expenditure of contribution paid to The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary for Hampi Utsav as not incurred for the purpose of business as provided U/s 37 of IT Act 1961. 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the rejecting the claim for deduction of contribution to Hampi Utsav is national festival and the Hampi Monuments are under the UNESCO tag. The Hampi utsav is a cultural festival to boost the morale and cul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....truction of 169 houses for the villagers who had lost their homes due to natural calamity on the ground that it was not an allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was pointed out that in para 23 of this judgment, the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court rendered in the case of Sri. Venkatasathyanarayana Rice Mills Contractors Co. Vs. CIT, 223 ITR 101 was noted and it was also noted that in that case, question arose was this as to whether contribution made to district welfare fund maintained by the District Collector would be against public policy or is an expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and it was held that such contribution is not against public policy and would be allowable unde....