J.S. VERMA, C.J.—This reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the revenue is to answer the following questions of law, namely, (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 10,117/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- incurred by the assessee was not in the nature of entertainment and was, therefore, not hit by section 37 (2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80G of the IT Act, 1961 on charity and donations amounting to Rs. 22,557/-? 2 The relevant assessment year is 1972-73. 3. The assessee claimed certain deductions as business expenditure under section 37 (2B) on account of the expenses incurred for supply of snacks and beverages etc. to its constituents. The assessee further claimed the deductions of Rs. 22,557/- as charity and donation to a charitable tru&t under section 80-G of the Act. It may be mentioned that according to the rerun filed by the assessee, it had incurred loss during that year so that there was no taxable income earned by it. The Income-tax Officer repelled both the contentions. He held that section 80-G was not attracted since the assessee had declared the loss for that year. The A. A. C. affirmed the view of the Income-tax Officer. However, the Tribunal held in favour of the assessee on both these points. Hence this reference at the instance of the revenue. 4. The point involved for decision in the above quoted first question is covered by the decisions of this Court in Pratap Cotton Trading Co. Vs. C.I.T. (l)and Mangilal Vijay, Kota Vs. C.I.T. (2). Following those decisions, the question has to be answered in the assessees favour holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of this amount as business expenditure as held by the Tribunal. 5. The other question alone now remains our for consideration. We find that the condition precedent for getting the benefit of deduction under section 80-G is similar to that under which the benefit of deduction under section 80-M of the Act is available. 5. The other question alone now remains our for consideration. We find that the condition precedent for getting the benefit of deduction under section 80-G is similar to that under which the benefit of deduction under section 80-M of the Act is available. Both these sections appear to be a part of the same scheme and there is no reason to construe their object differently. Section 80-M gives the benefit of deduction to the assessee where the gross total income of the assessee includes any income by way of dividends. The Supreme Court has held in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (3) that these opening words in sec. 80-M describe the condition which must be fulfilled in order to attract the applicability of the provisions contained in section 80-M. The condition is that the gross total income of the assessee must include income by way of dividends, or in other words the amount of dividends must form part of the gross total income in order that section 80-M may apply. 6. The opening words in section 80-G are in computing the total income of an assessee. This means that section 80-G is attracted for the purpose of computing the total income of an assessee or in other words where there is income earned by the assessee then the deduction permitted by section 80-G is to be given for the purpose of computing the total income of the assessee. In a case where there is no income earned by the assessee and, therefore, the question of computing total income does not arise, there appears to be no reason for giving the benefit of the deduction available under section 80-G. The principle indicated by the Supreme Court while construing the condition to be fulfilled for attracting section 80-M in the above decision must equally apply for construing the condition on fulfilment of which section 80-G is attracted. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that no case was made out for applying section 80-G and giving to the assessee benefit of the deduction available thereunder when the assessee had declared loss and there was no income earned for the purpose of taxation, so as to require computation of the total income. The Tribunals view on this point is, therefore, not justified. 7. The Tribunals view on this point is, therefore, not justified. 7. Consequently, the reference is answered partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. The first question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by holding that the Tribunals view on question No. 1 is justified. The question No. 2 is answered in the negative against the assessee and in favour of the revenue by holding that the Tribunals view on this question is not justified. 8. No costs.