B Bhushan & Associates

Key of The Budget Documents 2022-2023

Bullet Point of Budget 2022-2023

Deduction in respect of contributions given to Political Parties u/s 80GGB & 80GGC

CBDT Circular Restricting Amenities to Doctors is not retrospective
Editor| Income Tax 24 Feb 2018 1,083 Views 0 commentPrint Friendly and PDF
Case Law Details
Case Name : M/s D.D. Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 772/JP/2014
Date of Judgement/Order : 12/12/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2010- 11
Courts : All ITAT (4622) ITAT Jaipur (82)
Download Judgment/Order
M/s D.D. Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The ACIT (ITAT Jaipur)

The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. The assessee has claimed to have incurred advertisement, sales promotion, entertainment, traveling, business and miscellaneous expenses on doctors and business guests total amount to Rs. 71,97,585/-. The AO noted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is hit by explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act in view of the MCI Regulations, 2002 which were issued on 10.12.2009 w.e.f. 14.12.2009 prohibiting the doctors and medical practitioners from receiving gifts, freebies from the pharmaceutical companies/ individuals. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 60% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 45,75552/-.


Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CBDT circular dated 01.08.2012 is not applicable in the assessment year under consideration as it is applicable only w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14.

AO has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee but the disallowance was made by the AO only on the ground that the said expenditure is hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) being prohibited by the MCI Regulations, 2002 issued on 10.12.2012 w.e.f. 14.12.2012 and consequently CBDT Circular no. 5/2012 dated 01.01.2012. Thus, when the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted then the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed .

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A)-III, Jaipur dated 25.09.2014 for the A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds are as under:-

“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the application of explanation to sec. 37(1) of the Act and consequently erred in confirming the dis allowances made of various expenses, separately agitated in the ensuing grounds of appeal. The provisions so invoked being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case hence, the dis allowances so made kindly be deleted in full.

2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in considering the operation of the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 dated 01.08.2012 as retrospectively applicable and erred in confirming the application of the same for the subjected assessment year. The application of the said CBDT circular be held prospectively, not applicable in the subjected assessment year and accordingly the dis allowance based thereupon, kindly be deleted in full.

3. Rs. 71,97585/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the adhoc dis allowances totaling to Rs. 45,75,552/- out of the total expenditure Rs. 71,97,585/- incurred by the assessee on account of advertisement, publicity, sales promotion, traveling and other business expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes fully in accordance with the law of land and without any contravention and violation thereof. The details of the impugned dis allowance made and confirmed are as under:

S.No. AO AO CIT(A)
Dis allowance mad Amount
3.1 60% of Rs. 40,87,254/- Rs. 24,52,352 Confirmed
3.2 Out of Rs. 7,77,292/- Rs. 7,23,377/- Confirmed
3.3 60% of Rs. 79,410/- Rs. 47,646/- Confirmed
3.4 60% of Rs. 22,47,930/- Rs. 13,48,758/- Confirmed
3.5 60% of Rs. 5,699/- Rs. 3,419/- Confirmed
Total Rs. 71,97,585/- Rs. 45,75,552/- Rs. 45,75,552/-
The dis allowance so made and confirmed by the CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full

4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”


2. The assessee is a pharmaceutical company engaged in manufacturing of formulations of non patent/ generic drugs and sells them in brand names. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has debited various expenses in the profit and loss account of gifts to business guest, entertainment expenses, conference expenses on Doctors, traveling and conveyance expenses, miscellaneous expenses on Doctors. The AO analysis the details of the expenses and found that these expenses incurred in giving gifts and freebies to the Directors which is against the regulations issued by the Medical Council of India (MCI), therefore, the said expenditure is in violation of regulations issued by the Medical Council of India. The AO also placed reliance on the CBDT Circular No. 5/2012 and accordingly disallowed 60% of the total expenditure of Rs. 71,97,585/- amounting to Rs. 45,75,552/-. The assessee challenged the action before the AO before the ld (CIT)A and contended that the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Further, these expenses are fully vouched and duly supported with proper bills and vouchers received etc. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of the assessee and confirmed the dis allowances made by the AO on the basis of MCI Regulations and CBDT circular dated 01.08.2012.

3. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CBDT circular dated 01.08.2012 is not applicable in the assessment year under consideration as it is applicable only w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14. Further, he has submitted that the MCI regulations are in the nature of advice for its members constituents which includes doctors, medical practitioners, etc. Therefore, the MCI regulations has put an ethics prohibition upon them not to accept freebies like gifts, fee travel arrangements etc. But the said MCI regulation is completely silent so far as medical companies incurring the expenditure like assessee are concerned and therefore, it does not prohibit the pharmaceutical companies for incurring such expenditure for the purpose of their business. Hence, the ld. AR has argued that the MCI Regulations is not applicable on the pharmaceutical companies and consequential CBDT circular cannot be applied blindly. The authorities below have proceeded on misconception and purported confusion by understanding the MCI Regulations to be restriction put on pharmaceutical companies and not on the doctors. Such interpretation is completely contrary to the very contents of the regulations issued by MCI as it has been clearly put some restrictions and prohibitions on the medical practitioners who fall within the jurisdiction of the MCI and not on the pharmaceutical companies. As per the MCI Regulations only medical practitioners were prohibited to receive gifts and other freebies facilities from the medical companies/ individuals etc. and therefore, it was not a prohibition put on the medical companies/ individuals dealing with the manufacturing and sales of the medicine to the public. The ld. AR has further contended that even otherwise putting a prohibition upon medical companies is beyond the jurisdiction of MCI. Consequently the MCI Regulations could not have an effect as provided for any dis allowance of expenses incurred by the pharmaceutical companies. In support of his contention the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the decision dated 12.01.2017 of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Dy. CIT v/s PHL Pharma P. Ltd in ITA No. 4605/Mum/2014. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdiction Rajasthan High Court dated 18.07.2017 in case of Dr. Anil Gupta Vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No. 485/2008. Alternatively, the ld. AR has submitted that as per the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act an expenditure is not allowable if it is incurred for any purpose which is offence and prohibited by law. However, in the instant case the various dis allowances made by the AO are only minor irregularities or the contravention inviting fines but are not the expenditure incurred in the nature as contemplated by explanation to Section 37(1). The expenditure incurred by the assessee even it is in contravention of the MCI Regulations it cannot be held as an offence. The words “offence” is not defined in the Income Tax Act, however, it is defined in Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1887 which means by any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force. The expression “prohibited by law” is also not defined in the Income Tax Act however, when the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not prohibited by law and the ethical guidance issued by the MCI cannot be applied as prohibition. He has also relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in case of Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (2016 74 Taxmann.com 250.


4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the MCI Regulations are equally applied to pharmaceutical and allied industries, therefore, the gift and other expenses are covered by the explanation to Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision in case of Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) [TS-5503-ITAT-2017 ( Chennai)-O] and submitted that the Tribunal held that in view of the Medical Council of India (Professional conduct, ethiquette Ethics) Regulation, 2002, expenditure incurred by the taxpayer by way of freebies and gifts to doctors and medical practitioners was not allowable business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. DR has submitted that the assessee in the said case claimed that the provisions of MCI Regulations, 2002 applied to Directors only. The ld. DR has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. KAP Scan and Diagnostic Center (P.) Ltd. TS-5878-HC-2010 (Punjab & Haryana). Thus the ld. DR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held Commission paid by the diagnostic center to private doctors for referring patients for diagnosis could not be allowed as a business expenditure. He has also relied upon the decision of Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of ACT v. Liva Healthcare Ltd. [TS-6132-ITAT (Mumbai)-O] wherein the Tribunal held that expenses incurred by taxpayer pharmaceutical company on overseas tours of doctors to increase their sales and profitability was not an allowable expenditure as overseas trip were directed towards leisure and entertainment of doctors and their spouses rather than being directed towards seminar for product information. Further, expenses incurred towards free samples distributed to physicians will be allowable only if free samples of physicians/ doctors at initial stage of introduction to test efficacy of products. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5. We have considered the rivals submissions as well as relevant material on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. The assessee has claimed to have incurred advertisement, sales promotion, entertainment, traveling, business and miscellaneous expenses on doctors and business guests total amount to Rs. 71,97,585/-. The AO noted that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is hit by explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act in view of the MCI Regulations, 2002 which were issued on 10.12.2009 w.e.f. 14.12.2009 prohibiting the doctors and medical practitioners from receiving gifts, freebies from the pharmaceutical companies/ individuals. Accordingly, the AO disallowed 60% of the said expenditure amounting to Rs. 45,75552/-. The details of the expenditure and dis-allowance made by the AO are as under:-

Aggrieved by the action of the AO in disallowing the expenditure the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), however, it could not succeed as the ld. CIT(A) has decided in this issue in para 4.3 is as under:-

“4.3 I have carefully considered the findings of the A.O. and also the submission of the appellant. It may be noted that as per explanation to the sec. 37(1) of IT Act any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure. In this background it may be noted that as per the regulations issued by MCI, Notified on 14.12.2009 which is a statutory body of Govt. of India certain payments/ expenditure incurred on account of gifts/travel facilities/ hospitality and cash and monitory grants to the medical practitioners by any pharmaceutical companies or any individual dealing in health care for pharmaceutical sectors was prohibited and accordingly as per explanation to Sec. 37(1), such claim of expenditure under the income tax act was not to be allowed. There is no dispute on the fact that such prohibition came into effect w.e.f. 14.12.2009 as also that the assessee is a pharmaceutical company and covered under such regulation issued by MCI. The only dispute of the assessee is that the Circular issued by the CBDT w.e.f. 01.08.2012 subsequent to such regulation issued by MCI on 14.12.2009 should be effective from 01.08.2012 i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14. However, such contention is devoid of any merit in as much as the prohibition of law in respect of such expenditure was introduced by the MCI w.e.f. 14.12.2009 and not by the CBDT by way of Circular dated 01.08.2012. In fact the Circular issued by the CBDT is only of clarificatory nature explaining the same facts which have been stated by the MCI. The important issue to be noted is that even if such Circular would not have been issued by the CBDT such type of expenses/ payments would certainly qualified for dis allowance because of the prohibition/ illegality fixed by the MCI. It is also a settled law that the Circulars of clarificatory nature are to be enforced with retrospective effect. Accordingly prima facie there is no merit in the contention of the appellant. As regards the case laws relied upon by the appellant, it may be stated that as the Circular issue by the CBDT is of clarificatory nature therefore the case laws relied upon by the appellant will not have any applicability in this case. Accordingly the ground of appeal is dismissed.”


Before us, the assessee as well as Department has placed reliance on series of decisions wherein two divergent views were taken by this Tribunal. However, the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in case of Dr. Anil Gupta Vs. ACIT (supra) while dealing with an identical issue has held in para 5 to 11 are as under:-

“5. The Tribunal while considering the case of the appellant has observed as under:-

“8. We may submit that expenses are vouched, comparable from earlier year, incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. On test chech basis few person were produced and examined by AO. Section 37(1) provides that:-

(i) any expenditure,

(ii) not being in the nature of capital expenditure or

(iii) personal expenses of the assessee

(iv) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head “profits and gain of Business or profession”.

6. Counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Max hospital, Pitampura vs. Medical Council of India; ILR (2014) 1 Delhi 620 where expenses are required to be allowed to the hospital as business expenses and wherein the Delhi High court has observed as under:-

“In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is not disputed that the MCI under the 2002 Regulations has jurisdiction limited to taking action only against the registered medical practitioners. It’s plea however, is that it has not passed any petitioner cannot have any grievance against the impugned order. At the same time, it is stated that only simple observations were made by the ethics committee of the MCI about the state of affairs in the petitioner hospital and the same did not harm any legal right or interest of the petitioner. It will be apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by the MCI as under:-

4. Preliminary objections:

(i) That the instant writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is not cause of action for filing of this instant petition. The MCI has not passed any order against the petitioner in the impugned minutes of meeting dated 7.10.2012, therefore, there is no cause of action for filing the instant writ petition.

(ii) That the MCI has not passed any order against the petitioner and nor does the impugned minutes of meeting dated 27.10.2012 affect any legal right or interest of the petitioner which the petitioner seeks to enforce by filing this writ petition and thus the same is not maintainable.

(iii) That the jurisdiction of MCI is limited only to take action against the registered medical professionals under the Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter the ‘Ethics Regulations’) and has no jurisdiction to pass any order affecting rights/interests of any Hospital, therefore the MCI could not have passed and has not be assailed before this Honorable court in writ jurisdiction.

(iv) That a simple observation made by the Ethics committee of MCI about the state of affairs in the petitioner Hospital has harmed no legal right/interest of the petitioner for which a writ can be issued by this Honorable Court against the answering respondent.

(v) That the petitioner contends that an adverse order has been passed by the MCI and that too without hearing the petitioner. Both these contentions of the petitioner are incorrect and by the MCI against the petitioner as MCI does not have any such jurisdiction; secondly, the petitioner was throughout represented before the Ethics Committee of MCI during the proceedings initiated on complaint of one Mr. Sunil Manchanda against some of the doctors working in the petitioner hospital. The petitioner was heard through is advocates on several occasions and had submitted several documents also in support of their stand.

7. It is clearly admitted by the respondent that it has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the petitioner hospital under the 2002 Regulations. In fact, it is stated that it has not passed any order against the petitioner hospital. Thus, I need not go into the question whether the adequate infrastructure facilities for appropriate post-operative care were in fact in existence or not in the petitioner hospital and whether the principles of natural justice had been followed or not while passing the impugned order. Suffice it to say that the observations dated 27.10.2012 made by the Ethics Committee do reflect upon the infrastructure facilities available in the petitioner hospital and since it had no jurisdiction to go into the same, the observations were uncalled for an cannot be sustained.”

7. he has also relied upon the decision in case of Dr. T.A. Quereshil vs. Commission of Income Tax reported in (2006) 287 ITR 0547 where the expenses were allowed for business loss as a result of seizure of heroine.

8. However, counsel for the respondent Mr. Jain contended that action of the respondent unethical and in view of the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of income Tax vs. Kap Scan and Diagnostic Center P. Ltd. reported in (2012) 344 ITR 476 and also the decision of Supreme Court in case of M/s Maddi Venkataraman and CO. (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998 299 ITR 534 wherein para 24 and 25 it has been had as under:-

24. In the instant case the assessee had indulged in transactions in violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act. The assessee’s plea is that unless it entered into such a transaction, it would have been unable to dispose of the unsold stock of inferior quality of to***co. In other words, the assessee would have incurred a loss. Spur of loss cannot be a justification for contravention of law. The assessee was engaged in to***co business, the assessee was expected to carry on the business in accordance with law. If the assessee contravenes the provision of ERA to cut down its losses or to make larger profits while carrying on he business, it was only to be expected what proceedings will be taken against the assessee for violation of the Act. The expenditure incurred for evading the provisions of the Act and also the penalty levied for such evasion cannot be allowed as deduction. As was laid down by Lord Sterndale in the case of Alexander Von Glehn (supra) that it was not enough that the disbursement was made in the course of trade. It must be for the purpose of the trade. The purpose must be a lawful purpose.

25. Moreover, it will be against public policy to allow the benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute. In the instant case, if the deductions claimed are allowed the penal provisions of FERA will become meaningless. It has also to be borne in mind that evasion of law cannot be a trade pursuit. The expenditure in this case cannot, in any way, be allowed as wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of assessee’s business.”

9. We have heard counsel for both the sides.

10. Section 37 of the Income Act reads as under:-

“37(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head, “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession”.

[Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.]”

11. Counsel for the respondent has strongly relied upon explanation but in view of the observations made by the AO where he has allowed the part expenses of the hospital, in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) observations which are made by the CIT are required to be accepted. The explanation cannot come into play on appeal which was filed at this stage. Even otherwise in income tax proceedings the medical ethics will not be taken into consideration. At the most even if it is a professional misconduct it is to be dealt with my Medical Council of India. The income tax authority cannot decide the medical ethics when the original authority has partly
allowed the expenses”.

Respectfully the following the decision of the jurisdiction High Court (supra) we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the claim of the assessee. We make it clear that the AO has not doubted the genuineness of the expenditure incurred by the assessee but the dis allowance was made by the AO only on the ground that the said expenditure is hit by the explanation to Section 37(1) being prohibited by the MCI Regulations, 2002 issued on 10.12.2012 w.e.f. 14.12.2012 and consequently CBDT Circular no. 5/2012 dated 01.01.2012. Thus, when the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted then the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Honorable jurisdiction High Court.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/12/2017

E ASSESSMENT

As a part of e-governance initiative to facilitate conduct of assessment proceedings electronically, Income-tax Dept. has launched 'E-Proceeding' facility.
Under this initiative, CBDT has made it mandatory for the tax officers to take recourse of electronic communications for all limited and complete scrutiny.

In June, 2017, CBDT had issued the formats for issuing a notice to the taxpayers for conducting the scrutiny assessments. Now, CBDT issues an instruction for conducting the scrutiny assessments electronically.
As per the instruction, except search related assessments, all scrutiny assessments shall be conducted only through the 'E-Proceeding' functionality available at e-filing website of Income-tax Dept.

Through this instruction, the Board has laid down the procedures to be followed by the tax officers to conduct the scrutiny assessment electronically.

Ten-things to know about this instruction and e-Proceeding facility of Income-tax Dept. are as under.

1. All the communications with the taxpayers shall be signed digitally by the tax officer and it will be delivered to a taxpayer in his e-filling account.
2. On receipt of Dept. communication, taxpayer would be able to submit the response along with the attachments by uploading the same on e-filing portal.
3. All the submissions and replies should be made by the taxpayer till office hours on the date stipulated for compliance.
4. The response submitted by the taxpayer can be viewed by the concerned tax officer electronically in Income-tax Business Application (ITBA) Module.
5. The facility for electronic submission of documents shall be automatically closed 7 days before the time barring date.
6. Upon conclusion of hearing in assessment proceedings but before passing the final order, the concerned tax officer shall close the e-submission facility.
7. Not all proceedings shall be carried out electronically. A few proceedings can also take place manually, i.e., examining the books of accounts, examination of witness, etc.
8. The case-records and note sheets of proceedings is required to be maintained by the tax officer electronically.
9. These electronic proceedings shall be carried out by the tax officers for Limited Scrutiny (in case of CASS1), Complete Scrutiny (in case of CASS) and Compulsory Manual Scrutiny.
10. The taxpayer friendly measure would substantially reduce the compliance burden for the taxpayers as it would enable them to submit response to the Departmental queries electronically as per their convenience.

Union Budget 2018- Rationalisation of section 276CC relating to prosecution for failure to furnish return

Section 276CC of the Act provides that if a person willfully fails to furnish in due time the return of income which he is required to furnish, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, as specified therein, with fine.

Section 80 TTB
Deduction in respect of interest income to senior citizen

At present, a deduction upto Rs 10,000/- is allowed under section 80TTA to an assessee in respect of interest income from savings account. It is proposed to insert a new section 80TTB so as to allow a deduction upto Rs 50,000/- in respect of interest income from deposits held by senior citizens. However, no deduction under section 80TTA shall be allowed in these cases.

Budget 2018: Payments exceeding Rs. 10000 in cash by trusts & institutions shall be disallowed.

Section - 80G, Income-tax Act, 1961-2014

4Deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc.
580G. 6[(1) In computing the total income of an assessee7, there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section,—
8[(i) in a case where the aggregate of the sums specified in sub-section (2) includes any sum or sums of the nature specified in 9[sub-clause (i) or in] 10[sub-clause (iiia) 11[or in sub-clause (iiiaa) 12[or in sub-clause (iiiab)] 13[or in sub-clause (iiib)] 14[or in sub-clause (iiie)] 15[or in sub-clause (iiif)] 16[or in sub-clause (iiig)] 17[or in sub-clause (iiiga)] or 18[sub-clause (iiih) or] 19[sub-clause (iiiha) or sub-clause (iiihb) or sub-clause (iiihc) 20[or sub-clause (iiihd)] 21[or sub-clause (iiihe)] 22[or sub-clause (iiihf)] 23[or sub-clause (iiihg) or sub-clause (iiihh)] 24[or sub-clause (iiihi)] 25[or sub-clause (iiihj)] or] in] sub-clause (vii) of clause (a) 26[or in clause (c)] 27[or in clause (d)] thereof, an amount equal to the whole of the sum or, as the case may be, sums of such nature plus fifty per cent of the balance of such aggregate; and]
(ii) in any other case, an amount equal to fifty per cent of the aggregate of the sums specified in sub-section (2).]
(2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :—
(a) any sums paid28 by the assessee in the previous year as donations to—
(i) the National Defence Fund set up by the Central Government; or
(ii) the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund referred to in the Deed of Declaration of Trust adopted by the National Committee at its meeting held on the 17th day of August, 1964; or
(iii) the Prime Minister’s Drought Relief Fund; or
29[(iiia) the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund; or]
30[(iiiaa) the Prime Minister’s Armenia Earthquake Relief Fund; or]
31[(iiiab) the Africa (Public Contributions - India) Fund; or]
32[(iiib) the National Children’s Fund; or]
33[(iiic) the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust, the deed of declaration in respect whereof was registered at New Delhi on the 21st day of February, 1985; or]
34[(iiid) the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, the deed of declaration in respect whereof was registered at New Delhi on the 21st day of June, 1991; or]
35[(iiie) the National Foundation for Communal Harmony; or]
36[(iiif) a University or any educational institution of national eminence as may be approved37 by the prescribed authority38 in this behalf; or]
39[(iiig) the Maharashtra Chief Minister’s Relief Fund during the period beginning on the 1st day of October, 1993 and ending on the 6th day of October, 1993 or to the Chief Minister’s Earthquake Relief Fund, Maharashtra; or]
40[(iiiga) any fund set up by the State Government of Gujarat exclusively for providing relief to the victims of earthquake in Gujarat; or]
41[(iiih) any Zila Saksharta Samiti constituted in any district under the chairmanship of the Collector of that district for the purposes of improvement of primary education in villages and towns in such district and for literacy and post-literacy activities.
42[(iiiha) the National Blood Transfusion Council or to any State Blood Transfusion Council which has its sole object the control, supervision, regulation or encouragement in India of the services related to operation and requirements of blood banks.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause,—
(a) “National Blood Transfusion Council” means a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) and has an officer not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India dealing with the AIDS Control Project as its Chairman, by whatever name called;
(b) “State Blood Transfusion Council” means a society registered, in consultation with the National Blood Transfusion Council, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India and has Secretary to the Government of that State dealing with the Department of Health, as its Chairman, by whatever name called; or
(iiihb) any fund set up by a State Government to provide medical relief to the poor; or
(iiihc) the Army Central Welfare Fund or the Indian Naval Benevolent Fund or the Air Force Central Welfare Fund established by the armed forces of the Union for the welfare of the past and present members of such forces or their dependants; or]
43[(iiihd) the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister’s Cyclone Relief Fund, 1996; or]
44[(iiihe) the National Illness Assistance Fund; or]
45[(iiihf) the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund or the Lieutenant Governor’s Relief Fund in respect of any State or Union territory, as the case may be :
Provided that such Fund is—
(a) the only Fund of its kind established in the State or the Union territory, as the case may be;
(b) under the overall control of the Chief Secretary or the Department of Finance of the State or the Union territory, as the case may be;
(c) administered in such manner as may be specified by the State Government or the Lieutenant Governor, as the case may be; or]
46[(iiihg) the National Sports Fund to be set up by the Central Government; or
(iiihh) the National Cultural Fund set up by the Central Government; or]
47[(iiihi) the Fund for Technology Development and Application set up by the Central Government; or]
48[(iiihj) the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities constituted under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999); or]
(iv) any other fund or any institution to which this section applies; or
(v) the Government or any local authority, to be utilised for any charitable purpose 49[other than the purpose of promoting family planning; or]
50[51[(vi) an authority constituted in India by or under any law enacted either for the purpose of dealing with and satisfying the need for housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, or for both;]
52[(via) any corporation referred to in clause (26BB) of section 10; or]
(vii) the Government or to any such local authority, institution or association as may be approved in this behalf by the Central Government, to be utilised for the purpose of promoting family planning;]
(b) any sums paid by the assessee in the previous year as donations for the renovation or repair of any such temple, mosque, gurdwara, church or other place as is notified53 by the Central Government in the Official Gazette to be of historic, archaeological or artistic importance or to be a place of public worship of renown throughout any State or States;
54[(c) any sums paid by the assessee, being a company, in the previous year as donations to the Indian Olympic Association or to any other association or institution 55[established in India, as the Central Government may, having regard to the prescribed guidelines56, by notification in the Official Gazette57, specify in this behalf] for—
(i) the development of infrastructure for sports and games; or
(ii) the sponsorship of sports and games,
in India;]
58[(d) any sums paid by the assessee, during the period beginning on the 26th day of January, 2001 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2001, to any trust, institution or fund to which this section applies for providing relief to the victims of earthquake in Gujarat.]
(3) [Omitted by the Finance Act, 1994, w.e.f. 1-4-1994.]
59[(4) Where the aggregate of the sums referred to in sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi) 60[, (via)] and (vii) of clause (a) and in 61[clauses (b) and (c)] of sub-section (2) exceeds ten per cent of the gross total income (as reduced by any portion thereof on which income-tax is not payable under any provision of this Act and by any amount in respect of which the assessee is entitled to a deduction under any other provision of this Chapter), then the amount in excess of ten per cent of the gross total income shall be ignored for the purpose of computing the aggregate of the sums in respect of which deduction is to be allowed under sub-section (1)].
(5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose and if it fulfils the following conditions, namely :—
62[(i) where the institution or fund derives any income, such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of sections 11 and 12 63[* * *] 64[***] 65[or clause (23AA)] 66[or clause (23C)] of section 10 :
67[Provided that where an institution or fund derives any income, being profits and gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income, if—
(a) the institution or fund maintains separate books of account in respect of such business;
(b) the donations made to the institution or fund are not used by it, directly or indirectly, for the purposes of such business; and
(c) the institution or fund issues to a person making the donation a certificate to the effect that it maintains separate books of account in respect of such business and that the donations received by it will not be used, directly or indirectly, for the purposes of such business;]]
(ii) the instrument under which the institution or fund is constituted does not, or the rules governing the institution or fund do not, contain any provision for the transfer or application at any time of the whole or any part of the income or assets of the institution or fund for any purpose other than a charitable purpose;
(iii) the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste;
(iv) the institution or fund maintains regular accounts of its receipts and expenditure; 68[* * *]
(v) the institution or fund is either constituted as a public charitable trust or is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India or under section 2569 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or is a University established by law, or is any other educational institution recognised by the Government or by a University established by law, or affiliated to any University established by law, 70[71[***]] or is an institution financed wholly or in part by the Government or a local authority; 72[***]
73[(vi) in relation to donations made after the 31st day of March, 1992, the institution or fund is for the time being approved by the Commissioner in accordance with the rules74 made in this behalf 75[; and]
76[***]]
75[(vii) where any institution or fund had been approved under clause (vi) for the previous year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2007 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2008, such institution or fund shall, for the purposes of this section and notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to clause (15) of section 2, be deemed to have been,—
(a) established for charitable purposes for the previous year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2008 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2009; and
(b) approved under the said clause (vi) for the previous year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2008 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2009.]
77[(5A) Where a deduction under this section is claimed and allowed for any assessment year in respect of any sum specified in sub-section (2), the sum in respect of which deduction is so allowed shall not qualify for deduction under any other provision of this Act for the same or any other assessment year.]
78[(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) and Explanation 3, an institution or fund which incurs expenditure, during any previous year, which is of a religious nature for an amount not exceeding five per cent of its total income79 in that previous year shall be deemed to be an institution or fund to which the provisions of this section apply.]
80[(5C) This 81[section] applies in relation to amounts referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (2) only if the trust or institution or fund is established in India for a charitable purpose and it fulfils the following conditions, namely :—
(i) it is approved in terms of clause (vi) of sub-section (5);
(ii) it maintains separate accounts of income and expenditure for providing relief to the victims of earthquake in Gujarat;
(iii) the donations made to the trust or institution or fund are applied only for providing relief to the earthquake victims of Gujarat on or before the 31st day of March, 82[2004];
83[(iv) the amount of donation remaining unutilised on the 31st day of March, 82[2004] is transferred to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund on or before the 31st day of March, 82[2004];]
(v) it renders accounts of income and expenditure to such authority84 and in such manner as may be prescribed85, on or before the 30th day of June, 82[2004].]
86[(5D) No deduction shall be allowed under this section in respect of donation of any sum exceeding ten thousand rupees unless such sum is paid by any mode other than cash.]
Explanation 1.—An institution or fund established for the benefit of Scheduled Castes, backward classes, Scheduled Tribes or of women and children shall not be deemed to be an institution or fund expressed to be for the benefit of a religious community or caste within the meaning of clause (iii) of sub-section (5).
87[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a deduction to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any donation made to an institution or fund to which sub-section (5) applies shall not be denied merely on either or both of the following grounds, namely :—
88[(i) that, subsequent to the donation, any part of the income of the institution or fund has become chargeable to tax due to non-compliance with any of the provisions of section 11, 89[section 12 or section 12A];
(ii) that, under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the exemption under section 11 89[or section 12] is denied to the institution or fund in relation to any income arising to it from any investment referred to in clause (h) of sub-section (2) of section 13 where the aggregate of the funds invested by it in a concern referred to in the said clause (h) does not exceed five per cent of the capital of that concern.]]
Explanation 3.—In this section, “charitable purpose” does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature.
90[Explanation 4.—For the purposes of this section, an association or institution having as its object the control, supervision, regulation or encouragement in India of such games or sports as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette91, specify in this behalf, shall be deemed to be an institution established in India for a charitable purpose.]
92[Explanation 5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no deduction shall be allowed under this section in respect of any donation unless such donation is of a sum of money.]