9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Priority of deduction under section 80G over carry forward and set off of unabsorbed losses. 2. Claim for deduction under section 37(1) as welfare expenditure and alternatively under section 80G. 3. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to allow alternative claims. 4. Permissibility of making alternative claims under different sections. 5. Application of the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the priority of deduction under section 80G over the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed losses. The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to set off unabsorbed development rebate and relief under section 80J for previous years, reducing the taxable income to nil. Consequently, the issue arose whether deduction under section 80G should take precedence over the carry forward and set off of losses. 2. Another issue in the appeal was the claim for deduction under section 37(1) for payments made to certain institutions as welfare expenditure, along with an alternative claim for deduction under section 80G. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially questioned the validity of making alternative claims under different sections, arguing that sections 37 and 80G operate in distinct fields. The assessee contended that the payments were made for business purposes and should be treated as business expenditure under section 37. 3. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow alternative claims was also a point of contention. The Commissioner initially expressed concern over the alternative claims made by the assessee, suggesting that a single stand should be maintained. However, the final stand taken by the assessee was that the payments were made as business expenditure under section 37, not as donations under section 80G. 4. The Tribunal deliberated on the permissibility of making alternative claims under different sections. It cited a precedent stating that when implementing an appellate order, the assessment becomes open, allowing the assessee to make claims that were not made during the original assessment. In this case, the assessee had initially claimed deduction under section 80G but later sought to claim the same payments as business expenditure under section 37. 5. The application of the doctrine of generalia specialibus non derogant was discussed in the judgment. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument that once a claim is made under section 80G, an alternative claim under section 37 is impermissible. It emphasized that unless there is a specific provision prohibiting alternative claims, the assessee has the right to seek relief under different provisions. The Tribunal highlighted that the present claim did not fall under any such restriction, allowing the assessee to claim relief under alternative provisions. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, affirming the right of the assessee to make alternative claims under different sections and rejecting the revenue's argument against such claims.
|
