JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, and a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Charitable Trust Act, 1950, has questioned the rejection by respondents of its prayer to grant it approval under Section 35[1][ii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1961 Act” for short), by order dated 23.12.2013. This order is passed by respondent no.1 – Government of India through its Deputy Secretary, and respondent no.2 is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Vidarbha Region. 2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that petitioner was earlier granted approval after holding that it qualifies as an “other institution” as employed in that section. Rejection in impugned order is after holding that the petitioner – organization is mainly involved in running hospital and no education is imparted by it. It does not itself award/confer Ph.D. Degree upon anybody, and is not involved in significant educational activities. 3. It appears that this is second round of litigation. In first round, order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Director (ITAII), was quashed and set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5956/2010 on 17.11.2011. That order was set aside in view of the conclusion that application for approval needed to be considered only by the Central Government and the Director (ITAII) has no such power. 4. We have heard Shri A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Advocate with Shri N.S. Bhattad, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Rohit Deo, learned A.S.G.I. for respondent no.1 and Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 5. Petitioner claims that it is established in the year 1984 and carries on research activities, as also hospital activities on the donations received from general donors. It is recognized as a Charitable and Research Institute under Section 80G Income Tax Act and donors are entitled to claim deductions accordingly. It does not get any assistance directly or indirectly from the Government. It received donation of about 8 Crores. It is providing research facility to Postgraduate students who are pursuing their Ph.D. Courses in various Universities, and 7 students are taking advantage of that facility. It has also supplied list of students, who have already obtained Ph.D. Degrees on the basis of research work conducted by them at the petitioner–institute. It received donation of about 8 Crores. It is providing research facility to Postgraduate students who are pursuing their Ph.D. Courses in various Universities, and 7 students are taking advantage of that facility. It has also supplied list of students, who have already obtained Ph.D. Degrees on the basis of research work conducted by them at the petitioner–institute. It also has 4 registered patents in medicine issued by the Office of the Controller of Patents Designs and Trade Marks under Patent and Designs Act. 6. It was granted approval by respondent no.1 under Section 35[1] [ii] of the 1961 Act, and it accordingly fulfilled all the terms and conditions therefor. It is approved by the Central Government through its Department of Science and Technology as Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Such an approval has been granted on 23.04.2011 for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014. During pendency of this petition, it has received recognition on 09.05.2014 for further period upto 31.03.2017. Petitioner had sought approval in terms of Section 35[1][ii] of the Act and respondent no.1 granted it since the year 1984. Last such approval was given on 15.11.2006, for a period from 01.04.2005 upto 31.03.2008. Petitioner sought its renewal on 14.12.2007, and respondent no.1 raised certain queries on 15.09.2008. Petitioner submitted compliance therewith on 23.09.2008. Respondent no.2 then forwarded a favourable recommendation to respondent no.1, but, request for extension of approval was rejected by respondent no.1 on 27.04.2009, on the ground that petitioner Trust was not maintaining separate books of accounts for research activity. According to petitioner, this was factually incorrect. This rejection was questioned in Writ Petition No.5956/2010, and the impugned communication was set aside on 17.11.2011. Thereafter, respondent no.1 granted opportunity to the petitioner and vide order dated 20.06.2012, refused to extend the approval. Petitioner points out that this order has infact been passed after expiry of period for which the approval was sought for. 7. In the meanwhile, petitioner also applied for further approval w.e.f. 01.04.2012 onwards. After a long gap on 27.04.2013, respondent no.1 called upon petitioner to submit clarification on certain issues, and also sought explanation. Petitioner communicated compliance on 06.08.2013. On 18.11.2013, respondent no.1 asked for certain more compliances. Petitioner duly fulfilled it, and thereafter impugned order dated 23.12.2013 came to be passed. 8. After a long gap on 27.04.2013, respondent no.1 called upon petitioner to submit clarification on certain issues, and also sought explanation. Petitioner communicated compliance on 06.08.2013. On 18.11.2013, respondent no.1 asked for certain more compliances. Petitioner duly fulfilled it, and thereafter impugned order dated 23.12.2013 came to be passed. 8. In this background, Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel submits that the reasons given in the impugned order overlook the fact that earlier approval was granted by recognizing petitioner institute as 'other institute' falling under Section 35[1][ii] of the Act, and reasons recorded in the impugned order are therefore, unsustainable. Students registered with Nagpur University and a Deemed University perform research work in the petitioner Institution and that research work is recognized by these Universities for award of Ph.D. Degrees. A document at AnnexureP4 is relied upon to show that 8 doctors have been awarded Ph.D. Degrees by the Nagpur University and the deemed University by name Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Science University. 7 doctors are undertaking research activities and they are registered for Ph.D. with above mentioned deemed University under a guide duly recognized for that purpose. The Patent Office of Government of India has issued Patent No.221910 dated 29.01.2004, Patent No.219414 dated 22.03.2006 and Patent No.2214547 dated 08.03.2006 to petitioner Institute or to Dr. Lokendra Singh, who is one of its Medical Officers. These patents are in relation to the new inventions carried out in petitioner institution. Document at AnnexureP15 is also pressed into service to show the research projects already undertaken and in proposed. 9. In the light of this material, learned Senior Counsel invites attention to the terms “Research Association”, a “University”, a “College” and “other Institution” used in and distinction between them as envisaged under Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. He submits that educational activity is not essential in the scheme of said provision and primacy is given to research activities. According to him, petitioner has got faculty, as also facility to enroll and guide research Ph.D. students and thus, there is sufficient compliance with Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. Our attention is also invited to the fact that separate forms of applications are provided for scientific research association (on one hand) and for university, college or other institution, on the other. Our attention is also invited to the fact that separate forms of applications are provided for scientific research association (on one hand) and for university, college or other institution, on the other. He relies upon press release dated 03.11.2006, to point out that CBDT has streamlined the procedure and now it is one time approval and it is not necessary for the institute like the petitioner, to its renewal every year. 10. Shri Gorde further points out that the provision made in Section 35[1] is a beneficial provision which needs a liberal interpretation. He urges that as for earlier years, approval under Section 35[1][ii] was already granted; the same needs to be continued even in future. He has relied upon certain judgments to buttress his submissions on construction of phrase “other institution”. We find it convenient to refer to those judgments little later, at appropriate place. 11. Shri Deo, learned A.S.G.I., as also Shri Parchure, learned Counsel, support the impugned order. Shri Parchure, learned counsel points out that exemption under Section 35[1] is granted after due compliance with the terms and conditions prescribed therefor, and is notified accordingly in Official Gazette by Central Government. This exemption or certificate is not issued in respect of a hospital, and recognition given by the Central Government as Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, is in different context and not sufficient to demand approval under Section 35[1][ii]. Shri Parchure, learned counsel submits that word “Research Association” has been introduced in section 35[1] on 01.04.2011. Our attention is also invited to Rule 5A of the 1962 Rules, to urge that research needs to be carried through faculty and students. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have either faculties or the enrolled students. By inviting attention to the impugned order, learned counsel submits that negligible amount has been spent on research activities. Section 2[17] of 1961 Act is further pointed out with stand that a company is not entitled to deduction under Clause 1, unless it enters into an agreement with prescribed Authority for cooperation in such research and development facilities and for audit of accounts maintained by that faculty. He places reliance upon Section 35[3] for this purpose. He further invites attention to affidavit filed in reply in present matter by the respondents and particularly paragraph no.7 thereof to point out the lacunae noticed in the claim of petitioner. He places reliance upon Section 35[3] for this purpose. He further invites attention to affidavit filed in reply in present matter by the respondents and particularly paragraph no.7 thereof to point out the lacunae noticed in the claim of petitioner. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. After brief reply arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Parchure, learned counsel invites attention to the provisions in Maharashtra Universities Act to explain what words “College, University or institution” imply. He has also relied upon certain judgments to substantiate his contentions. 13. Section 35 of the 1961 Act is on expenditure on scientific research. It allows deductions as specified therein in respect of expenditure on scientific research. Sub-clause [ii] therein regulates such deductions if expenditure supporting such specific deduction is by a research association which has as its object, the undertaking of scientific research or by a University, College or other institution, to be used for scientific research. 14. One of the questions before this Court is how to construe the word “other institution”. In (2012) 6 SCC 339 (Commissioner of Customs (import) Mumbai vs. Konkan Synthetic Fibres), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered principles governing interpretation of CBEC Notifications /Circulars/Guidelines etc. In paragraph no.12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that all beneficial notifications providing the levy of duty at a concessional rate should be given a liberal interpretation. The notification regarding exemption generally warrants strict interpretation, but, when purpose of exemption is to encourage or promote certain activities, the exemption is beneficial and it should be liberally interpreted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier judgment reported at (2011) 12 SCC 74 Commissioner of Customs (preventive) vs. M. Ambalal and Co., to reach these conclusions. In paragraph no.13, 14 and 15 discussion in this respect is seen. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.14 points out that without doing violence to the language employed, liberal interpretation should be accorded. It is also explained in paragraph no.15 that if a question arises whether a subject falls in the notification or in the exemption clause, then it being in the nature of exemption is to be construed strictly and against the subject. But, once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted, and a subject falls in the notification, then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal interpretation. 15. But, once ambiguity or doubt about applicability is lifted, and a subject falls in the notification, then full play should be given to it and it calls for a wider and liberal interpretation. 15. In (1988) 27 ITD 581 (Allahabad) (U.P. Electronics Corporation Ltd vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner), the Allahabad High Court considers provisions of said Section 35, qua, a Corporation whose main object was to promote Electronic Industry and to prepare project report for entrepreneurs engaged in the business of electronic items. For preparation of such project report that Corporation undertook research and development work. Allahabad High Court held that the Corporation was entitled to exemption under Section 35. The contention of Corporation before the High Court was that the assessee Corporation incurred expenditure on research and its result was passed on to the subsidiary companies for use in carrying out certain works. It was noted that specifically for such purpose that Corporation itself was formed. In (2005) 93 ITD 223 (Delhi) (Shri Ram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation vs. Additional Director of Income Tax), the Delhi High Court has looked into provisions of Section 10[21], as also Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. In the process it has found that scientific research associations are one type of organization covered under Section 35. Such associations have Research as its sole object. The other type of institutions i.e. University, College or other institution use the money for scientific research and are not solely established to carry scientific research, but, may carry it out along with other activities for which they are established. In paragraph no.8, the Delhi High Court has followed the principles of ejusdem generis, and held that the expression “other institution” will take colour from expressing preceding it. Such Other institution therefore, imparts education in any discipline and in addition may carry out scientific research. 16. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of Gujarat High Court reported at (1993) 66 Taxman 411 (Gujarat) (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Parekh), which considers provision exemption in Section 10[22] of the 1961 Act. As per that provision any income of university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit, cannot be included while computing total income. Thus Section 10[22] does not use the words “other institution”, but, it employs words “other educational institution”. As per that provision any income of university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit, cannot be included while computing total income. Thus Section 10[22] does not use the words “other institution”, but, it employs words “other educational institution”. Hence, emphasis on education in scheme of said exemption is apparent. It is not useful to understand Section 35(1)(ii) with which we are concerned here. (1997) 90 Taxman 528 (SC) (Aditnar Educational Institution vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax), is the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by him. Said judgment again considers Section 10[22]. Madras High Court has in (1984) 18 Taxman 221 (Madras) (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Devi Educational Institution), again looked into Section 10[22] only. In paragraph no.9, the Madras High Court has found that it is not necessary that all educational activities referred to in the Trust Deed should be performed or established and benefit of Section 10[22] can be availed, if some educational activities have been carried on and the same have been laid on a permanent footing. Judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Shri Ram Scientific and Industrial Research Foundation vrs. Additional Director of Income Tax (supra), looks into the exemption provision of Section 10[21] of the 1961 Act. Delhi High Court notes that Section 10[21] exempts only a scientific research association and does not deal with the University, a College or other institution. It has further held that “other institutions” referred to in Section 35[1][ii] imply “educational institutions” and they are not covered under section 10[21] of the 1961 Act. It found that they may be covered under Section 10[22] or Section 20[23C], as the case may be. Shri Parchure, learned counsel has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court reported at (2012) 25 Taxman.com 133 (Gujarat) (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Asstt) vrs. Mastek Ltd.). Questions relating to Section 35[1] in Tax Appeals looked into by the Gujarat High Court are formulated in paragraph no.2 of the said judgment. The Gujarat High Court in the process also considers the provisions contained in Section 35 and the term 'scientific research'. In paragraph no.24, the Division Bench has concluded that the terms Research and Scientific Research respectively have a wide scope and do not necessarily mean only invention. Consideration in paragraph nos. The Gujarat High Court in the process also considers the provisions contained in Section 35 and the term 'scientific research'. In paragraph no.24, the Division Bench has concluded that the terms Research and Scientific Research respectively have a wide scope and do not necessarily mean only invention. Consideration in paragraph nos. 26 and 27 show that the Division Bench found that the Tribunal had decided the appeal before it in favour of the assessee without referring to full material on record. But, ultimately, in the light of discussion, the said Division Bench found that the Assessing Officer had not obtained the decision of prescribed Authority in terms of Section 35[3], and therefore, was not justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for deduction of expenditure incurred on scientific research. The view of the Tribunal to that extent was upheld. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the department has been dismissed by the Gujarat High Court. Thus, meaning of words “other institution” do not form the subject matter of discussion of this judgment. However, the liberal approach towards the phrase “research” or “scientific research” can be gathered from this judgment. 17. Judgment which interprets Section 10[22], consider the primacy given to the educational purposes in that provision. The University or Educational Institution envisaged therein must exists solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit. This emphasis is absent in Section 35[1][ii]. In order to qualify for deduction, sum paid to the Research association under Section 35[1][ii] in first category, the object of such research association has to be undertaking of scientific research. This object or emphasis upon it is not mandated in case of second type of organizations. This second type refers to only a University, College or other institution. Sum paid to a University, College or other Institution for its use for scientific research qualifies for deduction under Section 35[1]. 18. University or College are no doubt the educational institutions. The petitioners do not contend that it is not educational institution. On the contrary, effort it to show that it is a educational institution recognized as a scientific and industrial research organization. Petitioners have placed before us, list of students with it who have been awarded Ph.D. Decree and who are undergoing or undertaking research in it under a recognized faculty or guide. Dr. Rajpalsingh Kashyap is stated to be that guide. Petitioners have placed before us, list of students with it who have been awarded Ph.D. Decree and who are undergoing or undertaking research in it under a recognized faculty or guide. Dr. Rajpalsingh Kashyap is stated to be that guide. The benefit of ongoing research for grant of Ph.D. Degree is availed or to be availed by students enrolled deemed university, as also by Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University has awarded Ph.D. Degree to a student, each in year 2004, 2007 and 2012. It has awarded Ph.D. Degree to two students each in 2011 and 2013. Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University) has awarded Ph.D. Degree to a student by name Dr. Sweta Chourasia in 2014 in Medical Biotechnology. Particulars given in respect of account of research work carried in petitioner institution, are not in dispute. 19. CBDT has vide its circular no. 402/92/2006-ALC pointed out that for approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of a University, College or other institution, sum paid to it has to be used for scientific research and research in Social Science or research, which research should be carried out through its faculty members or under enrolled students. Petitioner has got students who have been awarded Ph.D. Degrees or who are undertaking research work using the facilities provided by it. Those students are enrolled with the University for said purpose and are being guided by a recognized guide. Provisions of Rule 5E(3) stipulate conditions subject to which approval can be granted to company. Maintaining separate books of accounts in respect of sums received by it for scientific research reflected therein, to mean actually used for such research, audit thereof, separate statements of donations received for said purpose duly certified by auditor, documents to be filed along with return under Section 139(1) etc., are the compliances incorporated therein. Sub-rule (f) of Rule 5E(3) is the power of Commissioner to report to the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner, in case he finds any defaults or lacunae by such approved company. 20. In additional affidavit filed on 16.09.2015, the petitioner has pointed out that the Nagpur University has granted renewal to it as a place of higher learning and research work leading to doctoral degree. This certificate is dated 15.05.2012, and recognition granted is for a period of five years. It is already placed on record along with rejoinder, which has been filed on 01.12.2014. This certificate is dated 15.05.2012, and recognition granted is for a period of five years. It is already placed on record along with rejoinder, which has been filed on 01.12.2014. It's copy is received by the respondents on the same date. This certificate mentions that this recognition is in subject “Micro Biology and Bio Chemistry” in the faculty of science with maximum intake capacity of 10 registered students in each subjects. The details of Ph.Ds., awarded as disclosed in this additional affidavit are also not in dispute. Such recognition by a Deemed University is also apparent from Ph.Ds. granted by it. 21. In this background, when the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 is perused, it shows plea of petitioner that it is recognized by Department of Science and Technology as Scientific and Industrial Organization or that it never claimed to be an educational institute with students with it as educational recognition by different organization. Petitioner requested respondent to consider those activities as tangible educational progress. In the impugned order, in paragraph no. 3.1.2, it is found that recognition as SIRO does not imply fulfillment of conditions laid down in Section 35[1][ii]. It is further found that applicant (petitioner), by itself does not grant Ph.D. Degree. Main activity of petitioner is found to be hospital. Memorandum of Association of petitioner is looked into to hold that there is no specific emphasis on pursuit of educational activities. However, the objective of conducting of conferences, refresher courses, lectures, seminars, demonstrations, workshops relating to research done and results obtained, is taken note of in paragraph no.3.2. The impugned order observes in paragraph no.3.2.2 that conduct of seminars, workshops etc., is not related to conduct of organized educational activities and cannot be accepted due to absence of any type of tangible educational activities. The dominant objective of petitioner is found to be running Super Specialty Hospital. 22. In paragraph no.3.3 of the impugned order, it is found that petitioner disclosed an insignificant amount out of its total gross receipts towards or as the income from students fees. Explanation furnished by the petitioner in paragraph no.3.3.1 that it collects fees from P.G Students and Research Scholars and also from students doing their dissertation work at nominal rate and charges do not cover the whole expenses, is, looked into in paragraph no.3.2.2. Explanation furnished by the petitioner in paragraph no.3.3.1 that it collects fees from P.G Students and Research Scholars and also from students doing their dissertation work at nominal rate and charges do not cover the whole expenses, is, looked into in paragraph no.3.2.2. The petitioner has in paragraph no.3.3.1 stated that such activities are undertaken as a part of its social responsibilities and not to make profits and total income therefrom constitutes a small fraction of revenue earned from service center which is part of infrastructure of medical research. Again impugned order observes in paragraph no. 3.3.2 that there is no tangible educational activity. In paragraph no.4 in the impugned order, the application in form 3 CFII submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted for approval. There it is also observed that term “other institution” needs to be construed in conjunction with term “University, College”. The provisions of Rule 5E[2] of Income Tax Rules, 1962 and term “Faculty or enrolled Students” are also taken note of. It is concluded that such claimant must be actively involved in pursuit of organized educational activities. It has been found that the petitioner has no faculty or enrolled students on its roll. 23. Having thus rejected the application, impugned order proceeds to point out deficiencies seen in the proposal of petitioner. It is noted that salaries of employees for research and research expenses including expenditure on consumables is only 5% of total expenditure. Thus, scientific research is found to be only an ancillary activity. The explanation furnished by the petitioner in paragraph no.6.1.1, that running of service center itself costs more, has been rejected in paragraph no. 6.1.2 on account of “almost insignificant expenditure on research activities”. It is also noted that research activities being carried out are not broad based spread over the various branches of medical science. 24. In paragraph no.6.2 the impugned order observes that various research activities claimed by petitioner are merely an outcome of analysis of data generated in hospital. Bulk of research is found to be conducted by few employees of Bio-Chemistry laboratory. Explanation given by the petitioner is found not satisfactory for the very same reasons. 25. Paragraph no. 6.3 of impugned order records that petitioner was requested to clarify whether any administrative and financial support was accorded to research projects undertaken by the employees. Bulk of research is found to be conducted by few employees of Bio-Chemistry laboratory. Explanation given by the petitioner is found not satisfactory for the very same reasons. 25. Paragraph no. 6.3 of impugned order records that petitioner was requested to clarify whether any administrative and financial support was accorded to research projects undertaken by the employees. Petitioner has given explanation pointing out that financial support for most of the research projects comes partly from donations and partly from revenue of the institution. For some projects, support comes from research funding organization like DDT/ICMR/DST/ CSIR. The total years (annual) amount from such funding does not exceed Rs. 20 lakhs. It was not giving any financial incentive in the form of award etc. to the Scientists, Doctors but, encouraged them to attend various National, International Conferences, which are mostly funded by it. This explanation is rejected with observation that if petitioner does not have institutional framework for grading research work of Doctors/Scientists, the said research work does not have any bearing on the promotions etc. Paragraph no.6.4 of the impugned order then raises a query whether separate man hours are earmarked for conduct of research activities by the employees. Petitioner explained that research staff members are working full time at the institute. The clinical consultants working full time also devotes approximately 23 hours for research. This has been rejected with comment that Doctors are primarily involved in running of the hospital. Indirectly, the authority while passing impugned order sat in appeal over the recognition granted, Ph.D.s awarded by the Universities and patents duly registered on the strength of such research work. 26. In paragraph no.6.5 query about separate research cadre in various departments for undertaking research activities has been raised and petitioner has answered it in the affirmative. It's explanation has been found not satisfactory as it is not supported by any documentary evidence. Thus, even on this count, it is observed that petitioners do not satisfy the prescribed conditions of approval in Section 35[1][ii] of the 1961 Act. 27. Hon'ble Apex Court in H.M.M. Ltd. v. CCE, (1996) 11 SCC 332 , Pg 340 ) notes that though the notification providing for an exemption has to be strictly construed but, it is equally wellsettled that the exemption notifications, like any other statutory provision, has to be construed reasonably having due regard to the language employed. 27. Hon'ble Apex Court in H.M.M. Ltd. v. CCE, (1996) 11 SCC 332 , Pg 340 ) notes that though the notification providing for an exemption has to be strictly construed but, it is equally wellsettled that the exemption notifications, like any other statutory provision, has to be construed reasonably having due regard to the language employed. Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1 , at page 28) observes as under : “41. We would like to embark on a discussion on some basic and fundamental concepts, which would shed further light on the subject-matter: 41.1. No doubt, there is no scope for accepting the Libertarian theory which postulates among others, no taxation by the State as it amounts to violation of individual liberty and advocates minimal interference by the State. The Libertarianism propounded by the Austrian born economist philosopher Friedrich A. Hayek and American economist Milton Friedman stands emphatically rejected by all civilized and democratically governed States, in favour of a strongly conceptualised “welfare State”. To attain a welfare State is our constitutional goal as well, enshrined as one of its basic feature, which runs through our Constitution. It is for this reason, specific provisions are made in the Constitution, empowering the legislature to make laws for levy of taxes, including the income tax. The rationale behind collection of taxes is that revenue generated therefrom shall be spent by the Governments on various developmental and welfare schemes, among others. 41.2. At the same time, it is also mandated that there cannot be imposition of any tax without the authority of law. Such a law has to be unambiguous and should prescribe the liability to pay taxes in clear terms. If the provision concerned of the taxing statute is ambiguous and vague and is susceptible to two interpretations, the interpretation which favours the subjects, as against the Revenue, has to be preferred. This is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation, to help finding out as to whether particular category of assessee is to pay a particular tax or not. No doubt, with the application of this principle, the courts make endeavor to find out the intention of the legislature. This is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation, to help finding out as to whether particular category of assessee is to pay a particular tax or not. No doubt, with the application of this principle, the courts make endeavor to find out the intention of the legislature. At the same time, this very principle is based on “fairness” doctrine as it lays down that if it is not very clear from the provisions of the Act as to whether the particular tax is to be levied to a particular class of persons or not, the subject should not be fastened with any liability to pay tax. This principle also acts as a balancing factor between the two jurisprudential theories of justice — Libertarian theory on the one hand and Kantian theory along with Egalitarian theory propounded by John Rawls on the other hand.” Thus, even adoption of a literal meaning of word “other institution” does not defeat the legislative intent of allowing deduction in present facts. 28. The fact that petitioner is recognized for enrolling students for Ph.D. Degree by two universities or grant of Ph.D. degrees by these universities, is not considered in the impugned order at all. The order mainly aims at finding out whether scientific research is main or substantial part of work undertaken by the petitioner. It therefore, overlooks the basic distinction between a “research association” on one hand and a “university, college or other institution” on the other, which is clearly spelt out by the legislature in Section 35[1][ii]. Research association has to possess object of undertaking scientific research. The donation to University, College or other institution for it being used for scientific research is sufficient in the scheme of said provision. The material produced on record by the petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that the petitioner institution carries on scientific research and is receiving donations for that purposes. We have already noted supra a decision where existence of all research activities is found not sine qua non for grant of such approval. We find that the petitioner has established on record that it is 'other institution', which is involved in helping students for Ph.D. and carries on scientific research. It is recognized as a place of higher learning and research work leading to doctoral degree by at least two Universities as per law. We find that the petitioner has established on record that it is 'other institution', which is involved in helping students for Ph.D. and carries on scientific research. It is recognized as a place of higher learning and research work leading to doctoral degree by at least two Universities as per law. Such a place definitely qualifies as an “other institution” in scheme of Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The impugned order does not mention that the petitioner is not maintaining separate books of account or then does not reflect therein amounts used for scientific research. On the contrary, data looked into in the impugned order shows that petitioner maintains such account books with necessary details. There is no observation in the impugned order that petitioner institution does not maintain a separate statement of donation and amounts used for research or then that copy of such statement was not duly certified by the auditor. We therefore, find that the impugned order suffers from non application of mind and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 29. Accordingly the said order dated 23.12.2013 passed by the respondent no.1 is quashed and set aside. The application moved by the petitioner is restored back to the file of respondent no.1, for taking fresh decision upon it, in accordance with law, in the light of observations made above. Fresh decision shall be taken after considering the entire material on record and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce such other documents as it may deem fit and proper. The fresh inquiry and proceedings shall be completed within six months by the respondent no. 1 after communication of this order to it. Writ Petition is thus, partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.