9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 AA , makes it clear that the CIT is not supposed to allow the registration with blind eyes. We agree with the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that mere imparting education for primary purpose of earning profits cannot be said to be charitable activity as interpreted by the Apex Court in MCD Vs. Children Book Trust [ 1992 (4) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT] , we are unable to agree with the ITAT that since word education is not qualified in Section 2(15), as such, every application received by a society, who is engaged in the business of imparting education is bound to be registered under Section 12 AA. If that view is accepted in that case, CIT will be failing in its duty to comply the provision of law contained in clause (a) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts of the case are that assessee/respondent society was registered on 24.05.1994, with the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Dehradun. Said society moved an application under Section 12 AA of the Act before Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun (for short CIT), for grant of registration under Section 12 AA (1)(b)(i) in prescribed Form 10 A on 07.06.2004. The CIT examined the copies of the accounts of income and expenditure for the financial year 2000- 2001, 2001-2002 and 2002 -2003 and concluded that assessee society is not carrying any charitable activity within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, as it was in a profit making business. Consequently, application for registration under Section 12 AA of the Act was reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income and expenditure account of the society for the financial year 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, and concluded that the society/respondent was not carrying any charitable activity as the dominant object was to earn profits under the garb of education . The CIT has further observed that the Society is charging substantial fee from the students and making huge profits. Referring to the case of MCD Vs. Children Book Trust (1992) 3 SCC Pg. 390, the CIT has refused the registration. The order passed by CIT on 14.09.2004, further discloses that the surplus has been transferred to the capital fund of society. It has been further clarified in the finding of CIT that no expenditure by the society is made for the charitable purpose. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
