My client's s.80GGC deduction has been disallowed because the recipient party is alleged to be an entry provider. Has any High Court decided what the party's own position is, and does that finding bind my client?
Yes as to the party, no as to your client. The Delhi High Court dismissed the party's own appeals, holding that the Tribunal's finding that it issued bogus donation receipts to enable donors to claim deductions under s.80GGB and s.80GGC, and paid the money back to the persons from whom it was purportedly received, is a finding of fact not open to interference under s.260A. The party also lost its s.13A exemption for failing to file the report required by the second proviso to s.13A. The Court decided nothing about any identified donor: the finding is that this party issued bogus receipts and paid the money back, not that any particular donor received a refund.
Decided by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J) on 2026-07-13, reported as ITA 434/2026, ITA 435/2026, ITA 439/2026, ITA 442/2026, ITA 443/2026, ITA 444/2026, ITA 449/2026 and ITA 480/2026, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. It bears on section 13A, section 80GGB, section 80GGC, section 68, section 56, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Capital Gains Exemptions, Cash Credits & Unexplained Money, Evidence & Burden of Proof and Appeals matters.
This is the recipient's side of the very racket that has generated the mass reassessment notices on donors, and it is the highest authority located on this pass on what happened. It matters to a donor in two directions. Against him, it means the department can point to a High Court affirming that the receipts were bogus and the money was returned. For him, it is a finding about the party, not about any particular donor — the Court decided nothing about whether a specific donor's payment was refunded, which is the issue on which the Tribunal decisions divide. Note also the quantum reasoning: the Tribunal had refused to add the whole of the donations under s.68 in the party's hands and instead added six per cent as commission under s.56, and the Court upheld that as the right measure while recording the department's reservation that the entire amount should have gone under s.68.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
A political party appealed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, New Delhi dated 17 December 2025. The Assessing Officer had made additions under s.68 of the donations or contributions received, which the CIT(A) affirmed. The Tribunal held the s.68 addition unsustainable but directed instead that six per cent of the donation or contribution be added under s.56 as commission. Before the High Court the party argued that once the s.68 addition fell, its income was eligible for exemption under s.13A and no addition under s.56 could be made. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue argued that the party had done no political activity and received no genuine political contribution, that it had issued forged receipts and given the amounts back to the payers, and that the department maintained without prejudice that the entire amount ought to have been added under s.68. The assessment order at para 4.13.1 recorded that the party had failed to submit the report to the Election Commission of India required by the second proviso to s.13A; in some assessment years an improper report was filed and in others none at all.
The appeals were dismissed along with the pending applications (para 12). The Tribunal's finding that the assessee indulged in issuing bogus donation receipts to various persons in a bid to give them undue advantage of deductions under s.80GGB and s.80GGC, and that the amounts purportedly received as donations were paid back to the persons from whom they were received, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with under s.260A (paras 6 and 7). On that footing the Tribunal was right to take six per cent of the total amount as the assessee's income rather than the entire purported donation, because the assessee had facilitated false donation receipts (para 8). The claim to s.13A exemption on the deletion of the s.68 addition was misplaced, a violator of law cannot claim exemption, and the books did not reflect a true and correct picture (para 9). Having flouted the second proviso to s.13A by filing an improper report in some years and none in others, the party lost its eligibility to claim exemption under s.13A (para 11).
The Court took the Tribunal's findings as findings of fact and applied the limits of s.260A (para 7). It then reasoned that if those findings stand, the six per cent commission measure is not open to challenge, because what the party did was to facilitate false donation receipts so that others could claim s.80GGB and s.80GGC deductions (para 8). On s.13A it held that the deletion of the s.68 addition does not carry the exemption with it, since granting exemption to a violator would produce mischief with the mandate of the provision and the books did not present a true and correct picture (para 9), and separately that the failure to file the report required by the second proviso to s.13A, established from the assessment order and the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), destroyed eligibility for the exemption altogether (paras 10 and 11).
the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee has indulged in issuing bogus donation receipts to various persons in a bid to give them undue advantage of deductions under Section 80GGB and Section 80GGC of the Act of 1961
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes as to the party, no as to your client. The Delhi High Court dismissed the party's own appeals, holding that the Tribunal's finding that it issued bogus donation receipts to enable donors to claim deductions under s.80GGB and s.80GGC, and paid the money back to the persons from whom it was purportedly received, is a finding of fact not open to interference under s.260A. The party also lost its s.13A exemption for failing to file the report required by the second proviso to s.13A. The Court decided nothing about any identified donor: the finding is that this party issued bogus receipts and paid the money back, not that any particular donor received a refund. This was decided by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J) and bears on section 13A, section 80GGB, section 80GGC, section 68, section 56, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA 434/2026, ITA 435/2026, ITA 439/2026, ITA 442/2026, ITA 443/2026, ITA 444/2026, ITA 449/2026 and ITA 480/2026, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. This is the recipient's side of the very racket that has generated the mass reassessment notices on donors, and it is the highest authority located on this pass on what happened. It matters to a donor in two directions. Against him, it means the department can point to a High Court affirming that the receipts were bogus and the money was returned. For him, it is a finding about the party, not about any particular donor — the Court decided nothing about whether a specific donor's payment was refunded, which is the issue on which the Tribunal decisions divide. Note also the quantum reasoning: the Tribunal had refused to add the whole of the donations under s.68 in the party's hands and instead added six per cent as commission under s.56, and the Court upheld that as the right measure while recording the department's reservation that the entire amount should have gone under s.68. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Read this before deciding whether to contest a donor's disallowance on genuineness or to concede and fight only on quantum, limitation and penalty.
A political party appealed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, New Delhi dated 17 December 2025. The Assessing Officer had made additions under s.68 of the donations or contributions received, which the CIT(A) affirmed. The Tribunal held the s.68 addition unsustainable but directed instead that six per cent of the donation or contribution be added under s.56 as commission. Before the High Court the party argued that once the s.68 addition fell, its income was eligible for exemption under s.13A and no addition under s.56 could be made. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue argued that the party had done no political activity and received no genuine political contribution, that it had issued forged receipts and given the amounts back to the payers, and that the department maintained without prejudice that the entire amount ought to have been added under s.68. The assessment order at para 4.13.1 recorded that the party had failed to submit the report to the Election Commission of India required by the second proviso to s.13A; in some assessment years an improper report was filed and in others none at all. The matter was decided on 2026-07-13 by the High Court (Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeals were dismissed along with the pending applications (para 12). The Tribunal's finding that the assessee indulged in issuing bogus donation receipts to various persons in a bid to give them undue advantage of deductions under s.80GGB and s.80GGC, and that the amounts purportedly received as donations were paid back to the persons from whom they were received, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with under s.260A (paras 6 and 7). On that footing the Tribunal was right to take six per cent of the total amount as the assessee's income rather than the entire purported donation, because the assessee had facilitated false donation receipts (para 8). The claim to s.13A exemption on the deletion of the s.68 addition was misplaced, a violator of law cannot claim exemption, and the books did not reflect a true and correct picture (para 9). Having flouted the second proviso to s.13A by filing an improper report in some years and none in others, the party lost its eligibility to claim exemption under s.13A (para 11).
The Court took the Tribunal's findings as findings of fact and applied the limits of s.260A (para 7). It then reasoned that if those findings stand, the six per cent commission measure is not open to challenge, because what the party did was to facilitate false donation receipts so that others could claim s.80GGB and s.80GGC deductions (para 8). On s.13A it held that the deletion of the s.68 addition does not carry the exemption with it, since granting exemption to a violator would produce mischief with the mandate of the provision and the books did not present a true and correct picture (para 9), and separately that the failure to file the report required by the second proviso to s.13A, established from the assessment order and the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), destroyed eligibility for the exemption altogether (paras 10 and 11). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee has indulged in issuing bogus donation receipts to various persons in a bid to give them undue advantage of deductions under Section 80GGB and Section 80GGC of the Act of 1961"
It was decided by the High Court on 2026-07-13 and is reported as ITA 434/2026, ITA 435/2026, ITA 439/2026, ITA 442/2026, ITA 443/2026, ITA 444/2026, ITA 449/2026 and ITA 480/2026, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 13A, section 80GGB, section 80GGC, section 68, section 56, section 260A, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeals were dismissed along with the pending applications (para 12). The Tribunal's finding that the assessee indulged in issuing bogus donation receipts to various persons in a bid to give them undue advantage of deductions under s.80GGB and s.80GGC, and that the amounts purportedly received as donations were paid back to the persons from whom they were received, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with under s.260A (paras 6 and 7). On that footing the Tribunal was right to take six per cent of the total amount as the assessee's income rather than the entire purported donation, because the assessee had facilitated false donation receipts (para 8). The claim to s.13A exemption on the deletion of the s.68 addition was misplaced, a violator of law cannot claim exemption, and the books did not reflect a true and correct picture (para 9). Having flouted the second proviso to s.13A by filing an improper report in some years and none in others, the party lost its eligibility to claim exemption under s.13A (para 11). It arises in Capital Gains Exemptions, Cash Credits & Unexplained Money, Evidence & Burden of Proof and Appeals matters, on section 13A, section 80GGB, section 80GGC, section 68, section 56, section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Dinesh Mehta J and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not let the Assessing Officer treat this as deciding your client's case: nothing here holds that any identified donor received a refund. If the department relies on the party's assessment records, ask for the specific material in them that names your client — the assessment order referred to at para 10 of this judgment is about the party's own s.13A default, not about donors. Where you act for a political party, note that the second proviso to s.13A report to the Election Commission of India is treated as going to eligibility itself, not as a procedural lapse.
Validity check could not be completed. Decided 13 July 2026. No Special Leave Petition was traced on this pass, and no later decision considering it was located. It is a decision on the recipient party's own assessment and does not decide any donor's entitlement; it should not be cited as concluding a donor's case. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
Read in full from the plain /doc/ URL; 12 numbered paragraphs with the disposal at para 12. It is a short common order disposing of eight appeals — ITA 434, 435, 439, 442, 443, 444, 449 and 480 of 2026 with connected CM applications — against a common Tribunal order of 17 December 2025 of the 'C' Bench, New Delhi. The appellant is recorded only as 'Public Political Party'; the judgment does not name the assessment years, the amounts, or the Tribunal appeal numbers, and it is unclear from the report whether that is the party's registered name or an anonymisation. The document is a digitally signed order downloaded from the Delhi High Court server on 14 July 2026. Paragraph 10 refers to para 4.13.1 of the assessment order, which was not retrieved. The order records no formal framing or answering of substantial questions of law; it concludes only that the appeals fail. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeals were dismissed along with the pending applications (para 12). The Tribunal's finding that the assessee indulged in issuing bogus donation receipts to various persons in a bid to give them undue advantage of deductions under s.80GGB and s.80GGC, and that the amounts purportedly received as donations were paid back to the persons from whom they were received, is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with under s.260A (paras 6 and 7). On that footing the Tribunal was right to take six per cent of the total amount as the assessee's income rather than the entire purported donation, because the assessee had facilitated false donation receipts (para 8). The claim to s.13A exemption on the deletion of the s.68 addition was misplaced, a violator of law cannot claim exemption, and the books did not reflect a true and correct picture (para 9). Having flouted the second proviso to s.13A by filing an improper report in some years and none in others, the party lost its eligibility to claim exemption under s.13A (para 11).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
You have a document that says so. Does that settle it?
If the department doubts my shareholders, can it add the money to my income?
You gave particulars, paid by cheque and got a confirmation. Has the burden shifted?
The Tribunal recalled its whole order on my miscellaneous application. Will that recall survive?