ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Charging of interest under section 234A,234B,234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-4, Mumbai, dated 17.09.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟, dated 27.12.2016 for A.Y. 2014-15.

Citation :
ITA No.7572/MUM/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND
SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
ITA No.7572/MUM/2019
(Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Shri Kushal Virendra Tandon
802, Rustomjee Enclave,
Upper Juhu, Behind DN Nagar Police Station, Andheri West,
Mumbai – 400 058

vs

ACIT -16(1)
Room No. 439, 4th Floor,
Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020

Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R
Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Date of Hearing : 29/06/2021
Date of pronouncement : 03/09/2021
ORDER

On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the deduction of Rs.17,50,000/- claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) in respect of payment of Rs.10,00,000/- made to "School of Human Genetics and Pollution Health” which is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Briefly stated, the assessee who is a film actor/model by profession had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 28.11.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.57,28,770/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was initially processed as such u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) of the Act.

3. We shall first address the disallowance of the assessee‟s claim for deduction of Rs. 17,50,000/- u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act by the lower authorities. Admittedly, the assessee during the year under consideration had donated an amount of Rs. 10 lac to “School of Human Genetics and Pollution Health” (for short „SHG&PH). On the basis of the aforesaid donation, the assessee had in his return of income claimed a weighted deduction of Rs.17.50 lac i.e an amount equal to one and three fourth times of the amount of donation of Rs.10 lac in terms of Sec. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. As is discernible from the records, it is an admitted fact that at the time of making of such donation SHG&PH was having a valid approval granted under the Act by the CBDT.

4. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue before us in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties. As brought to our notice by the ld. A.R, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that Shri Virendra Tandon i.e the father of the assessee had duly disclosed the gift transaction in his financial statement for the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2014-15. Notably, the amount gifted by the assessee to his son is found debited in the „Çapital A/c‟ of Shri. Virendra Tandon (Page 129 of APB). Apart from that, we find that the Shri. Virendra Tandon had separately by way of a „gift deed‟,dated 21.06.2013 therein admitted of having given the irrevocable gift out of love and affection to his son i.e the assessee.

5. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2021

Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement
 

 

Poojitha Raam
on 17 September 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 22
downloaded 7 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags