9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the rejection of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The assessee is an educational institution applied in form No.56D seeking exemption of its income u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.9.2014 before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax found that the assessee society s objects are included other than the educational objects as per the Memorandum of association as under: a) To encourage sportsman and adventurous spirit in the pupils and those connected with the institution. b) to print, publish and exhibit films, journals, periodicals, books for the diffusion of useful knowledge. c) To provide residential accommodation either free of cost and educate, train, assist financially the social workers, staff, students, orphans. 3. The primary requirement for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act is solely educational objects, since the assessee is also having other than educational objects, the assessee s application for grant of approval u/s 10( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idental to any of the primary objects as contended by the representative of the assessee society. Hence, held that the society does not exist solely and exclusively for the purpose of education and relied on the decision of Hon ble A.P. High Court in the case of M/s. New Noble Educational Society Vs. CIT and Others reported in (2011) 12 Taxmann.com 267 (Andhra Pradesh) and the decision of Reliance Motor Company Ltd. Vs. CIT of Hon ble High Court of Madras reported in 213 ITR 733 and rejected the application of the assessee for approval u/s 10(23C) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Appearing for the assessee, Ld. A.R. argued that the above objects are ancillary or incidental to the objects of the primary objects, hence requested for conditional exemption considering the objects of the society mentioned (supra). The Ld. A.R. argued that though there are objects other than educational objects, the assessee society is engaged solely for the purpose of education. Hence, argued that the assessee society is entitled for approval u/s 10(23C) of the the above objects are ancillary or incidental to the objects of the prima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trovert the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax in its order. The Ld. CIT(E) rejected the assessee s application placing reliance on the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High court in the case of New Educational Society cited (supra) which reads as under: If there are several objects of a society some of which relate to education , and others which do not, and the trustee or the managers, in their discretion, are entitled to apply the income or property to any of those objects, the institution would not be liable to be regarded as one existing solely for the educational purposes, and no part of its income the institution may be held entitled for the benefit under section would be exempt from tax. In other words, where the main objects are distributive, each and every one must relate to education in order that the institution may be held entitled for the benefit under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. 7. Further, the Ld. CIT(E) relied on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Reliance Motor Company Limited Vs. CIT (supra), wherein it was held as follows: The argument of learned counsel that though the trust deed mentions charitable and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncidental and ancillary to the primary objects. The facts of the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Yougmen Christian Association Vs. CIT 274 ITR 383 (All.) are distinguishable on the facts of the assessee s case. In the cited case Allahabad High court in Yougmen Christian Association (YMCA) the institution was existing for educational purpose from 1910 and the department could not prove any other activity. For denying the exemption various objections were given such as not having a car and claiming the depreciation and expenses for repair and giving loans etc. Hence the both the case laws relied up on by the assessee do not any way come to it s help. In the instant case the other objects are clearly non educational and are the main objects of the society. As observed by the Ld. CIT(E), they cannot be considered as ancillary or incidental objects to the primary objects as argued by the Ld. A.R. The assessee argued for conditional grant of approval but there is no such provision in the Act for conditional grant of approval. As discussed earlier the approval would be granted only if the institution exists solely for educational purposes. Hon ble A.P High Court in New Noble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
