9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax, Dehradun, treating it as a charitable society on 14.03.2008. Writ petitioner Society applied for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act for the financial year 2008-2009. The same was rejected by the order, which was impugned in the writ petition, saying that Objects 3, 4 & 5, as mentioned in the memorandum, do not fall within the definition of "solely for educational purposes". The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order and directed the Prescribed Authority to take a decision afresh in the light of the observations made by the court. 2. We have heard Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s basis that the impugned order came to be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4996 and in terms of the provisions contained in Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, the authority is entitled to call for information even in relation to past four years; whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner has already produced the documents relating to the previous three years, which is what is relevant. 7. As far as the first contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eiving the impossibility of an institution as such de hors the society making an application, we would reject the contention. When an application is made by the society, it is being made on behalf of the institution. The society would be assessed, if it is denied the benefit of Section 10(23C)(vi), for running the institution and deriving an income out of it and it is the income from the educational institution derived by the society, which is to be excluded from the total income under Section 10(23C)(vi). Therefore, we reject the said contention. 9. Coming to Objects 3, 4 & 5, we are of the view that the contention of the appellant, which appears to be that they indicate that the society can earn from other objects which do not amount to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
