9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate ORDER S. J. Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice (Oral): 1. Rule. Rule returnable and heard finally. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P21), passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (for short, the 'CCIT'), rejecting its application for exemption/approval, filed under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , provided the excess income has been applied or accumulated for exemption, wholly or exclusively, for the purpose of education. It was further held that on an application, the authority could grant approval, subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem fit, provided that they are not in conflict of the Act and that the parameters of earning profits beyond 15% and its investment is wholly f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. We are informed that in those appeals, a Division Bench of this Court has passed an interim order, directing the CCIT to decide the applications, in accordance with the judgment passed by the Division Bench in CWP No.858 of 2009 on 29.01.2010. 6. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the CCIT. After setting out the facts, the CCIT furnished the reasons for rejecting the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel appearing for the respondent, is that the issue of limitation, as regards the applications for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 were correctly decided vide the original order dated 23.03.2009 and therefore, that issue stands concluded. 8. The submission is not well founded. Whether the issue was correctly decided or not, is not relevant at this stage. The fact is that the order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
