Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (2) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act for the years 1969-70 to 1974-75. The ITO gave effect to the order of the Tribunal which reduced the taxable income to nil. Since the gross income was nil, the ITO did not give any deduction under section 80G. There was an appeal against this order contending that the deduction under section 80G should be given priority over the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed losses, etc., of earlier years. For other years, i.e., for 1977-78 onwards there was a claim that the sums paid to Sandur Education Society and Sandur Residential School were deductible as welfare expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act and alternatively there was a claim for deduction under section 80G. The Commissioner (Appeals) entered into some correspondence w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o clarify that payments to the said institutions were claimed as doantions up to and including for the assessment year 1976-77. Even for the assessment year 1976-77 there is no alternative claim under section 37. For the assessment years 1977-78 to 1979-80, these payments have been claimed as business expenditure under section 37. The alternative claim under section 80G was made in the event that our claim for deduction under section 37 is rejected.' In their letter dated 11-9-1984 after being asked to make the matter more explicit, the learned chartered accountants declared : 'It is no doubt true that the company claiemd such payemtns as donation up to and including the assessment year 1976-77. This was purely a mistake. It is from t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itially submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) travelled beyong his jurisdiction. In the original assessment it had claimed deduction under section 80G. It was not open to the assessee to change its stand at the time of implementing the Tribunal's order in appeal agaisnt the original assessment. Alternatively, it was submitted that sections 80G and 37 operate in different field. What was essentially a donation could not be allowed under section 37 and what is claimed as a business expenditure has to be allowed or not to be allowed, but there is no scope for bringing the same under some other section, like section 80G. In other words, the very claim of deduction under business expenditure will negative the claim of the assessee under sect .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the time of the original assessment. It is noted that there was already a claim for deduction of the two sums under section 80G. All that the assessee has done is to claim the deduction under a different head. It cannot be said that there was a new claim for deduction but only an alternative mode of claiming releif for the same item. The Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, right in asking the ITO to go into the nature of the payments and decide whether such payments constituted business expenditure or not. 5. The arugment of the revenue that when once a claim is made under section 80G, an alternative claim under section 37 is not permissible, is not correct. The entire scheme of the Act bristles with such opportunities. What is claim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... field out of a larger field covered by the general enactment and, secondly, there must be nothing contained in the general provisions indicating he legislative intent to overrule or set aside the particular provisions. The rule is, that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute, and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may proeprly apply. But this rule of construction is not of universal application. It is subject to the condition that there is nothing in the general provision, expressed or implied, indicating an in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates