TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assessee to the donee, on which the assessee no mechanism to check the veracity, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation has been cancelled after two years of the payment of donation. It is fact which has been unearthed subsequent to the donations. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground. Failure to make payment of employees contribution towards provident fund within due date as provided under this Act - deduction disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance by putting reliance upon judgment of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department. It has been getting donations from various sources, and after deducting certain amount of commission, these donations were refunded in cash. On the basis of that survey report registration granted to its favour was cancelled. On the basis of the outcome of that survey report, the ld.AO construed the donation given by the assessee as bogus. Appeal to the ld.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee contended that donations were given on 25.3.2014. At that point of time, donee was notified as eligible institution and fall within the statutory eligibility criterion. Certificate for receiving donation was cancelled on 5.9.2016. There is no mechanism with the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In the next ground, the assessee is challenging disallowance of ₹ 1,33,018/-. 8. The assessee failed to make payment of employees contribution towards provident fund within due date as provided under this Act, hence, its claim for deduction was disallowed under sect6ion 36(1)(va) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) has confirmed disallowance by putting reliance upon judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 366 ITR 170. Considering reliance put forth by the ld.CIT(A) on the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, we are of the view that no interference is called in the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. This ground of appeal is rejected. 9. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
