Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1584 - HC - Income TaxExemption u/s 11 - charitable object u/s 2(15) - assessee was performing, broadly answers the description of “education” but it charges extremely high rates of fee which, in fact, amounts to commercialization of education - HELD THAT:- The findings of the Tribunal, we notice, are that the essential objects of the respondent – assessee continue to be the same i.e. providing education to schools. The Revenue’s reliance on Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, [1997 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] is of no avail. The ITAT had considered that judgment and analyzed the facts of this case in the light of both the previous judgments as well as the later ruling in Queen’s Educational Society [2015 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT] The Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the Revenue’s appeal; objects for the respondent – assessee remained unaltered. The extent of fees charged by it ipso facto cannot be the basis to conclude that the purpose for which it was set up had changed. Diversion under Section 13(3) - Goodwill and monetary value of the trade mark, which arose in the course of the respondent’s activities, ought to have accrued to it rather than the owner - The Court is of the opinion that the ITAT’s reasoning on this aspect too is merited. Besides, the use of a trade mark per se does not confer an advantage upon the licensee or authorized user – under Section 40(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the benefit of such use accrues to the owner. This aspect too has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court and later affirmed in Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT [2016 (12) TMI 123 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
|