GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 297 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

2015 (4) TMI 297 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Exemption/approval, filed under Section 10(23C)(vi) rejected - Held that:- Whether the issue was correctly decided or not, is not relevant at this stage. The fact is that the order dated 23.03.2009 was set aside by the Division Bench vide order dated 29.01.2010, in its entirety. It is necessary, therefore, for the CCIT to decide the matter afresh including on the question of limitation.

In the circumstances, the impugned order rej .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s including the issue of limitation shall be decided after keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court M/s Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2015 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT] - CWP No.6714 of 2014, CWP No.6833 of 2014 - Dated:- 25-3-2015 - S. J. Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice And G. S. Sandhawalia,JJ. For the Petitioner Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate For the Respondent Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate ORDER S. J. Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice (Ora .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

), which was rejected vide the impugned order. The original order was challenged in CWP No.858 of 2009 titled Kashatriya Sabha Maharana Partap Bhawan, Kurukshetra Vs. Union of India & another, decided on 29.01.2010 and the Division Bench of this Court inter alia held that earning profits is not a deciding factor to conclude that an educational institution exists for profit. The Division Bench further held that where more than 15% of the income of the educational institution is accumulated on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

olly for the purpose, as may be expressly stipulated, as per the statutory requirement. 4. Considering the order that we intend passing, it is not necessary to refer to the judgment in any detail. Suffice it to note that the Division Bench ultimately allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders and directed the CCIT to decide the same, afresh, after considering every case independently, but in the light of the judgment. 5. The petitioner's case, however, was decided on remand. O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y 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 application. All the paragraphs except paragraph No.7 are almost identical to the order dated 23.03.2009 (Annexure P14), which had been set aside by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 29.01.2010. It does not appear to be a fresh consideration of the matter in its entirety. The impugned order concludes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version