TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. As the donation to “ School of Human Genetics and Population Health” was made while it was holding the approval in question, we direct the AO to grant the said deduction as claimed. In the result this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 2362/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2018 - Hon ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM For the Appellant : Shri Miraj D.Shah, AR For the Respondent : Shri Imlimerm Jamir, Addl. CIT ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Genetics and Population Health, Kolkata had been granted approval u/s 35(1)(ii) of the I.TAct, 1961 vide Notification No. 4/201O/F. o. 203/64/2009/ITAT dated 28.01.2010 in the Official Gazetted by the Central Government. Any expenditure to such Notified .Institution which has as its object the undertaking of scientific research is eligible for weighted deduction equal one and three fourth times of any sum paid. However, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue ) (Central Board of Direct Taxes) Vide Notification No. 82/2016/F.No. 203/64/2009/IT A.I1 dated 15.09.2016 in The Gazette of India: Extra Ordinary had rescinded the Notification granting approval by the Central Government to the appellant for the purpose of clause (ii) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all not come to the rescue of the appellant as it relates, only to approvals which have been withdrawn subsequent to the payment made to Institutions to which clause (ii) or cause (iii) applies. In the case of M/s School of Human Genetics and Population Health, Kolkata, the notifications had been deemed not to have been issued for any tax benefits under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or any other law of the time being in force. Though the appellant made a donation of only ₹ 15,,00,000/-, however, he has claimed u/s 35(1 )(i) and (ii) weighted deduction amounting to ₹ 26,25,,000/- from his return income. The disallowance is, therefore, restricted to the deduction claimed at ₹ 26,25,,000/-. 5. After hearing rival conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions were given after due satisfaction of the assessee based on personal visits to the two research centres of HHBRF and activities carried on by them. Moreover, it is well settled that it is always the prerogative of the assessee to give or not to give any donation to a particular institution, which wisdom cannot be questioned by the revenue. The question of business expediency of an expenditure had to be viewed from the point of view of the businessman and not from the view point of the revenue. The businessman knows his interest best. However, it cannot be denied that this donation paid to HHBRF is free from any suspicion. It definitely leads to further probe by the revenue, which has been carried out by the revenue by summoning the Dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
