9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with the judgment titled Kashatriya Sabha Maharana Partap Bhawan, Kurukshetra Vs. Union of India & another, [2010 (1) TMI 1151 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein held that earning profits is not a deciding factor to conclude that an educational institution exists for profit. We reiterate that all the issues 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they are not in conflict of the Act and that the parameters of earning profits beyond 15% and its investment is wholly 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. On the other hand, in the meantime, the assessment orders were completed on the basis that no exemption had been obtained under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P21) is set aside. We are informed that the matter is, now, to be decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
