2025 (10) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the AO on account of donation given to the school of human genetics and population held scheme u/s 35AC of the Act. 3. There is a delay in filing this appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit showing the cause of delay. Considering the cause, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Delay is condoned. 4. Heard the parties. Orders of the authorities below carefully perused. 5. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26/11/2014 declaring total income at Rs. 22,02,27,560/-. The return was selected for scrutiny and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is a firm doing busin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sions and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts are, in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had donated an amount of Rs. 10 lakh to SHG&PH. In the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 17,50,000, being one and on half times of the amount of Rs. 10 lakh, in terms of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. It is also not disputed that at the time of making such donation, SHG&PH was having a valid approval granted under the Act by the CBDT. In the aforesaid factual position, we have to examine whether the subsequent cancellation of registration to SHG&PH vide CBDT order dated 15th September 2016, with retrospective effect can invalidate assessee....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dealing with identical issue of denial of deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to subsequent withdrawal of approval with retrospective effect, held that retrospective cancellation of registration will have no effect upon the deduction claimed by the donor since such donation was given acting upon registration when it was valid and operative. In case of MotilalDahya Bhai Jhaveri & Sons (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench while dealing with identical issue of denial of deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, in respect of donation given to the very same Institution i.e., SHG&PH held that, since, at the time of giving donation the assessee had acted on the strength of a valid registration/approval, which was subseq....