9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the decision of this Court in Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust (2014 (9) TMI 575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) to conclude that the activities which are run by the respondent-institute is an educational activity and not in the nature of running a Coaching Center or a Class. The Revenue is not able to point why it would not apply. We may also point out that the grant or refusal to grant exemption under Section 10(22) and/or (23C) of the Act cannot govern the application of Section 11 of the Act. In any case, we are informed that no appeals in respect of Section 10(22) and/or (23c)(vi) of the Act are pending disposal. No substantial question of law. - Income Tax Appeal No. 1368 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 28-3-2018 - M.S. SANKLECHA, SANDEE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer in his order dated 31st December, 2007 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act denied the same on the ground that the claim for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act for the Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1998-99 which had been granted by the Tribunal was pending in Appeal filed by the Revenue in this Court, as well as, application under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was pending before the CIT. It was on the aforesaid basis that the Assessing Officer held that the benefit under Section 11 cannot be granted to the petitioners. This without dealing with the petitioner's primary contention that they are entitled to exemption as they satisfy the definition of charitable purpose as they are an educational institution. The Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter-alia hold that the activity which is carried out by the respondent-assessee is educational in nature. This is for the reason that it imparts education to the members of the banking industry and prepares them to discharge their duties as bankers more efficiently. Further, with regard to the objection of the Assessing Officer that as the benefit of the respondent-Institute is restricted only to the persons working in the banking industry, it is not available to the public at large was negatived by placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in 82 ITR 704. In the above case, it has been held that the object beneficial to a section of the public is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
