TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C)(vi) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2014-2015 onwards. The Learned CCIT called for the details of the assessee. The Learned CCIT reproduced the aims an objects of the assessee society in the impugned order which revealed that assessee is involved in promoting the education and for other objects as well. The Learned CCIT on going through the objects found that only the aims and objects at Serial No.(i) and (v) cater the purpose of education and rest others are different purposes than education which are not charitable in nature and clearly indicates other motives of the assessee society. The Learned CCIT, therefore, concluded that assessee society is not solely operating for educational purposes. The explanation of assessee was called fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act. He has submitted that issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Harf Charitable Trust (Regd.) Malerkotla vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax And Another [2015] 376 ITR 110 (P&H). 4. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the impugned order and submitted that assessee did not appear before the Ld. CCIT to explain the issue and relied on Board Circular No.14/2015, Dated 17.08.2015. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High court in the case of Harf Charitable Trust (Regd.) Malerkotla vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ground that in view of a clause which provided that the trust could run a business, it would be debarred as such from registration on the ground that it was not existing solely for educational purposes. That merely a conferment of power to do business would not debar the right of consideration of the trust without any finding being recorded that the predominant object of the trust was to do business. Thus, the Chief Commissioner misdirected himself in rejecting the application on this ground without coming to any conclusion that the trust was carrying on any other activity under clause (i). It was also a matter of fact now that the trust had already also deleted the objectionable clause for the year 2010-11. The Chief Commissioner was dir....