9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds in the instant appeal : 1. "The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing the claim of weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AA) of the Act. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of weighted deduction of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-@ 150% of the payment of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- towards donation made to the IISc, Bengaluru merely on the basis of "letter of appreciation" from IISc, Bengaluru submitted by the assessee, without any specific direction when the provision calls for any specific direction by the assessee that the said sum shall be used for Scientific Research undertaken under a programme approved in this behalf by the prescribed authority'. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of weighted deduction of Rs. 7,50,00,000/-@ 150% merely on the basis of 'letter of appreciation' from IISc, Bengaluru payment of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- towards donation made to the IISc, Bengaluru without verifying the authenticity of the certificate. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in considering that the naming of the said auditorium after the father of the director of the assessee company as ' A. V. Rama Rao Auditorium' did not create any acquisition of rights in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the appellant-company and the assessment order, allowed the claim of deduction u/sec.35(2AA) of the Act by observing as under : "5.8. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that, the donation was made by the appellant for the purpose of creation of auditorium facilities in the scientific institute, which is integral part of the scientific activity of the said institute and also naming of the said auditorium after the father of the director of the appellant company as 'A.V. Rama Rao Auditorium' did not create any acquisition of rights in or arising out of scientific research. Hence, the appellant is eligible for the claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Further, the inadvertent claim made by the appellant on the said donation u/s. 35(2AA) of the Act under the purview of donation to the National Laboratory will not preclude the appellant from the claim of weighted deduction due to the fact that, the quantum of deduction to be allowed under the both the sub-sections of section 35 of the Act are same. Hence, there is no new claim / deduction is sought by the appellant in this regard. Thus, it is only a clerical error by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the Assessing Officer should be confirmed in the interest of justice. 8. CA K C Devdas, Learned Counsel for the Assessee, while supporting the order of the learned CIT(A), submitted that the appellant-company has donated the impugned sum of Rs. 5 crores to the IISc Bangalore for the purpose of construction of state-of-the-art Auditorium which is has been confirmed by the IISc, Bangalore vide it's letter of appreciation dated 20.03.2018 and there is no dispute with regard to this fact between the parties. He submitted that the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the appellant-company on the ground that the said sum is used by the IISc, Bangalore for the purpose of construction of state-of-the-art Auditorium which is 'capital' in nature, without considering the submissions of the appellant company that the state-of-the-art Auditorium is used for conducting seminars, workshops which is integral part of scientific research work by IISc, Bangalore and therefore, the appellant-company is eligible for deduction u/sec.35(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer without appreciating the Receipt and Letter of Appreciation issued by the II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently, at the time of assessment proceedings, made a claim that by an inadvertent error deduction has been claimed u/sec.35(2AA) of the Act instead of u/sec.35(1)(ii) of the Act and sought for deduction u/sec.35(1)(ii) of the Act. In our considered view, when donations paid by the appellant company to IISc, Bangalore is eligible for deduction u/sec.35(1)(ii) of the Act, merely for the reason of making a wrong claim u/sec.35(2AA) of the Act, the deduction available to the appellant-company cannot be denied only on the ground that the appellant-company has not made the claim by filing a revised return as required under law. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer is completely erred in rejecting the claim of the appellant-company by citing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., vs., CIT (supra), because, it is not a fresh claim of any deduction, but, it is only a rectification of mistake in making a claim under appropriate provisions of law. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for disallowing donations paid to IISc, Bangalore by the appellant-company by citing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
