9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 20-3-2012 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. M. P. Rastogi with Mr. K. N. Ahuja, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Anshul Sharma, Adv. SANJIV KHANNA, J: (ORAL) 1. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.10.2008 passed by the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions), Delhi ( DG‟, for short) denying them exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act‟, for short). The operative portion of the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion it is stated that about 1750 schools all over India are affiliated with the petitioner society and are imparting education from nursery to twelfth standard. In other words the petitioner is performing the similar functions if not identical functions performed/ undertaken by the Central Board of Secondary Education and the State Boards. 3. The question raised is whether or not the petitioner can be regarded as an educational institution for the purpose of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The said provision reads as under: - (23C) any income received by any person on behalf of- (vi) any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, other than those mentioned in sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd were for the purpose of education. Thus, the Board was an educational institution. The High Court rejected the contention that fee, etc. for the said services, constitute and should be regarded as activities for purpose of profit. We may note that there is no allegation in the impugned order dated 08.10.2008 that the petitioner is engaged in activities for purposes of profit. 5. An institution established for educational purpose need not conduct teaching classes, is no longer a matter of doubt or ambiguity and was examined by the Supreme Court in Assam State Text Book Production and Publication Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, (2009) 319 ITR 317 (SC). The said corporation was engaged in publication of text books for the students and had claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Supreme Court distinguished the earlier decision in the case of M/s. Oxford University Press etc. v. CIT, (2001) 247 ITR 658 (SC) and held that the American Hotel and Lodging Association was entitled to exemption as an educational institute under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. We may only record here that the aforesaid institute was not directly imparting education and had not employed teachers who were teaching or giving lectures to the students. Decision in Oxford University Press (supra) is distinguishable as the said assessee was in publication business and engaged in sale of books as a business venture. The assessee had therefore claimed exemption on the ground that it was a university and not on the ground that it is an education ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
