JUDGMENT
Y.B. Bhatt, J.
1. The assessee, being a doctor, received remuneration outside India in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 from Maimonides Medical Centre, Brooklyn, in U. S. A., in respect of which the assessee claimed 50 per cent. deduction under Section 80R of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This deduction was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, whereupon the assessee went in appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee’s appeal on the said ground. The Department, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal which, on consideration of the relevant evidence, agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. This reference has been made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, whereunder the questions raised for our consideration are as under :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim 50 per cent. deduction in respect of the remuneration received outside India from Maimonides Medical Centre, Brooklyn in U.S.A. under Section 80R of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
2. Whether there was material before the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion that the Maimonides Medical Centre, Brooklyn, in U. S. A. was an educational institution ?
3. Whether it was not necessary that the Maimonides Medical Centre, Brooklyn, in U. S. A. should have been notified under Section 80R of the Act in order that the remuneration received therefrom would qualify for deduction under Section 80R ?”
3. On a plain reading of Section 80R of the Income-tax Act, as it stood then, it is clear that, in order to be entitled to a deduction of 50 per cent. of such remuneration, either of the two conditions should be met, viz., that the remuneration was from any university or other educational institution established outside India or from any other association or body which may have been notified. Even a plain reading of this provision makes it clear that these are not simultaneous conditions and that satisfaction of any one condition would be sufficient to entitle the assessee to the necessary relief. The contention of learned counsel for the Revenue to the effect that the institution in question has not been notified and that, therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to the relief cannot be of any help to the Revenue so long as the other condition is satisfied.
4. Looking to the record, we find that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also the Tribunal have appreciated the material on record in a correct perspective. The assessee has produced sufficient material to indicate that, firstly, it was a teaching institution as also a research institution and was also engaged in running a hospital. This material also establishes that the assessee was a research worker and had rendered services with the institution and would, therefore, be entitled to claim the relief. The assessee has also produced letters from the institution which certify that the assessee has spent a year at the centre from July 1, 1974, to June 30, 1975, “in the areas of surgical studies and surgical research”. This letter further certifies that “that centre is a university affiliated, voluntary hospital imparting training in the fields of medicine and surgery and other major medical specialities accompanying research”.
5. Another letter dated October 14, 1977, produced by the assessee also states that the concerned Centre is “an approved educational institution affiliated with Downstate Medical Centre of the State University of New York. The residency programmes at the Centre are approved by the American Board of Medical Specialties and the appropriate individual boards”.
6. The assessee had also filed before the Income-tax Officer a photostat copy of the certificate granted to him by the Education Department of the University of the State of New York. This certificate has been appreciated by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also by the Tribunal and both have rightly come to the conclusion that the same was granted to the appellant only after he had given satisfactory evidence of the completion of the professional arid other requirements prescribed by law under which that institution was governed.
7. In view of this material on record, we are bound to hold that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the said Centre was an educational institution within the meaning of Section 80R of the Income-tax Act.
8. It may be further noted that there is nothing on the record to indicate or even a hint of any situation to the contrary.
9. In the premises aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to a deduction of 50 per cent. in respect of the relevant remuneration received from outside India, and that the institution in question was an educational institution within the meaning of Section 80R of the Income-tax Act.
10. In view of our findings hereinabove, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee ; question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee ; and question No. 3 is answered in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
11. This reference is, therefore, disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.