TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Health (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. SHGPH') and claimed weighted deduction of Rs. 35,00,000/- as deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act @175% of the amount paid to the said M/s. SHGPH. The A.O. after taking note of the Gazette Notification dated 28.01.2010 issued by CBDT under Govt. of India which recognized M/s. SHGPH as an institution which is entitled for weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act, allowed the weighted deduction @175% for the donation given by the assessee by assessment order dated 29.06.2016. Later, Pr. CIT came across a communiqué dated 15.09.2016 of CBDT which conveyed the information that the Central Govt. has rescinded the relevant notification No.4/2010 dated 28.01.2010 to the effect that the said notif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ognition of Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, 1988 was made for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2013 vide communication in F.No.14/473/2007-TU-V dated 17.06.2010. We note that the assessment order was passed on 29.06.2016 allowing the assessee weighted deduction @175% of the amount paid to M/s. SHGPH u/s 35(1)(ii) for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- given as donation to M/s. SHGPH. The assessee has challenged in the first place, the very usurpation of jurisdiction by ld. Principal CIT to invoke his revisional powers enjoyed u/s 263 of the Act. Therefore, first we have to see whether the requisite jurisdiction necessary to assume revisional jurisdiction is there existing before the Pr. CIT to exercise his power. For that, we ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i.e. "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue "unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law". 4. Taking note of the aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a research association, university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, the approval granted to the association, university, college or other institution referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) has been withdrawn. From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is very clear that the payer (the assessee herein) would not get affected if the recognition granted to the payee had been withdrawn subsequent to the date of contribution by the assessee. Hence, no disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in ....