Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2016 (6) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - [2016] 385 ITR 66 - Exemption to the educational institutions (assessees herein) under Section 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act - Held that:- The issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Queen's Educational Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2015 (3) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein held that the correct tests which have been culled out in the three Supreme Court judgments stated above, namely, Surat Art S .....

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 continue to apply their income and invest or deposit their funds in accordance with the law laid down. Further, it is of great importance that the activities of such institutions be looked at carefully. If they are not genuine, or are not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which approval has been given, such approval and exemption must forthwith be withdrawn. All these cases are disposed of making it clear that revenue is at liberty to pass fresh order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9603/2013, C.A. No. 9604/2013, C.A. No. 9605/2013, C.A. No. 9606/2013, C.A. No. 9607/2013, C.A. No. 9608/2013, C.A. No. 9609/2013, C.A. No. 9610/2013, C.A. No. 9611/2013, C.A. No. 9612/2013, C.A. No. 9613/2013, C.A. No. 9614/2013, C.A. No. 9615/2013, C.A. No. 9616/2013, C.A. No. 9617/2013, C.A. No. 9618/2013, C.A. No. 9619/2013, C.A. No. 9620/2013, C.A. No. 9621/2013, C.A. No. 9622/2013, C.A. No. 9623/2013, C.A. No. 9624/2013, C.A. No. 9625/2013, C.A. No. 9626/2013, C.A. No. 9627/2013, C.A. No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dv., Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv. For The Respondent : Ms. Sujata Kurdukar,Adv., Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv., Mr.Arta Trana Panda, Adv., Mr. Rohit Kaura, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Adv., Mr. Arna Das, Adv., Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv., Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gaurav Mittal, Adv., Mr. Deepanshu Jain, Adv., Ms. Namita Choudhary,Adv., Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv., Ms. Mahua Kalra,Adv., Ms. Husnal Syali, Adv., Mr. Subramonium Prasad,Adv., Mr. Nikhil Goel,Adv., Ms. Naveen Goel, Adv., Mr. Ashuthosh, Adv., D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rvish Jitendra Malkan,Adv., Mr. Vimal Chandra S. Dave,Adv., Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv., Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta,Adv., Mr. Aftab Ali Khan,Adv., Mr. M.Z. Chaudhary, Adv., Mr. Ali Safeer Faroozi, Adv., Mr. Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Adv., Ms. Garima Prashad,Adv., Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv., Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rohit Kaura, Adv., Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Adv., Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Adv., Mr. Shishir Deshpande,Adv., Mr. Bharvava V. Desai, Adv., Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. ORDER Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. In the said judgment, the Court summarised the legal position as under: 11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that it ceases to exist solely for educational purposes and becomes an institution for the purpose of making profit. (2) The predominant object test must be applied .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al purposes. (5) The ultimate test is whether on an overall view of the matter in the concerned assessment year the object is to make profit as opposed to educating persons. We may record at this stage that there was a difference of opinion among various High Courts on the aforesaid issue. While summarizing the law, this Court approved the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Delhi and Bombay High Courts and reversed the view taken by the Uttarakhand High Court. Insofar as the judgment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

unjab and Haryana High Court were passed almost solely upon the law declared by the Uttarakhand High Court, it is clear that these orders cannot stand. Consequently, Revenue s appeals from the Punjab and Haryana High Court s judgment dated 29.1.2010 and the judgments following it are dismissed. We reiterate that the correct tests which have been culled out in the three Supreme Court judgments stated above, namely, Surat Art Silk Cloth, Aditanar, and American Hotel and Lodging, would all apply to .....

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