TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed authority would not invalidate assessee s claim of deduction. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Trading Co. [ 1996 (2) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT] while dealing with the issue of effect of retrospective cancellation of registration certificate. A reading of Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) would make it clear that if the assessee acting upon a valid registration/approval granted to an Institution has donated the amount for which deduction is claimed, such deduction cannot be disallowed if at a later point of time such registration is cancelled with retrospective effect. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ptember 2012, declaring total income of ₹ 44,09,416 after claiming deduction of ₹ 17.50 lakh under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The aforesaid deduction was claimed on account of donation made of ₹ 10 lakh to School of Human Genetics and Population Health (SHG PH). The assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act allowing the deduction claimed. Subsequently, survey operations were conducted in case of SHG PH and another two institutions viz. Matrvani Industries of Experiential Research and Education (MIER E) and Herbicure Healthcare Bio Herbal Research Foundation (HHBRF). In the course of such survey operation, it was found that these institutions were not carrying out any act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative submitted, the statute has also made it clear that the benefit of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be denied on account of subsequent withdrawal of approval granted to the Institution. Thus, he submitted, assessee s claim of deduction should be allowed. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT v/s Chotatingrai Tea, [2003] 126 Taxman 399 (SC); ii) State of Maharashtra v/s Suresh Trading Co., 1998 taxmann.com 1747; iii) National Leather Cloth Mfg. Co. v/s Indian Council of Agricultural Research, [2000] 100 Taxman 511 (Bom.); and iv) Motilal Dahya Bhai Jhaveri Sons v/s ACIT, ITA no.3453/ Mum./2018, dated 24.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., 18 taxmann.com 217; x) CIT v/s Ultra Modern Exports Pvt. Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 458; xi) CIT v/s Frostair Pvt. Ltd., 26 taxmann.com 11; xii) CIT v/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Del.); xiii) CIT v/s Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd., 366 ITR 110; xiv) CIT v/s Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd., 51 taxmann.com 46 (Del.); xv) N.K. Proteins Ltd. v/s CIT, 2017 TIOL 23 SC IT; and xvi) N.K. Proteins Ltd. v/s CIT, 2016 TIOL 3165 HC AHM IT. 7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts are, in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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 retrospective withdrawal of approval granted by the prescribed authority would not invalidate assessee s claim of deduction. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Trading Co. (supra) while dealing with the issue of effect of retrospective cancellation of registration certificate. In fact, in case of National Leather Cloth Mag. Co. (supra), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court while dealing with identical issue of denial of deduction claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act due to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
