Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURTApplication of Section 10(22) rejected - Held that:- We do not think that the assessee can take advantage of the etymological meaning of the word 'education' to gain the benefit of Section 10(22). In the philosophical sense, every acquisition of knowledge can be termed as 'education'. One learns even by experience. Every form of entertainment can also be termed as 'education'. That is what is contemplated by Section 10(22). The expression 'educational institution' is ejusdem generis with the word 'university' appearing in Section 10(22). Therefore, the first question of law is to be answered against the assessee. As a consequence, the second question of law as to whether the interpretation given by the Tribunal to the objects clause of the assessee, was correct or not, should also be answered against the assessee. The bylaws of every society or the deed of trust of every trust contains innumerable clauses relating to the objects of the society of the trust. These objects do not make the institution an educational institution existing solely for educational purposes. Therefore, the second question of law is also answered against the assessee. Computation of capital gains on the transfer of the school - This question is raised on the basis that the transfer took place on 17.5.1996 and that therefore, it could be adjudicated for assessment only during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1997-98 - Held that:- All that the assessee claimed even in their miscellaneous petitions under Section 254(2) was that the assessee was compelled to sell the school to the SBOA Trust, since they were unable to meet their obligations to the Canara Bank. In the miscellaneous petitions, the assessee further claimed that they handed over the school with all the students and teachers to SBOA school with a condition to clear the dues of the Canara Bank and the dues of Shri Ram Capital Trust Private Limited. Since SBOA School insisted for a registered sale deed to enable them to get a loan from the State Bank of India, the assessee executed a sale deed. Such a plea was taken for the first time by the assessee, in the miscellaneous petitions under Section 254 for recalling the earlier order. Therefore, we hold on the third substantial question of law that the assessee cannot be allowed to change its stand now. - Decided against the assessee Rejection of exemption contemplated in terms of Section 11 - Held that:- To qualify for the exemption under Section 11, the income should have been derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and only to the extent to which, such income is applied to such purposes in India. Once it is found that the assessee had sold away the school and what was carried on by them later do not qualify, they cannot claim exemption under Section 11 - Decide against assessee
|