9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution for over 13 years as of 2011. Further, the specific assertion made by the petitioner that for all the years they have been on academics only, has not been found to be incorrect by the first respondent. Thus, on account of narrow interpretation of the provisions, an erroneous order has been passed. Thus, for the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside . The first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant approval to the petitioner Trust under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order from the date of the application/relevant assessment year. - W.P.No.5560 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being to work for intergrated development of children, to establish, run, maintain and carry on educational institution or institutions vocational training centres and polytechnics and if thought fit, to start or take over other educational institutions and to receive gifts or donation in cash or in kind either as contribution towards the corpus fund or for carrying out any specific purpose or objects of the Trust. 3. The petitioner applied for grant of exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the year 2009-10 dated 31.03.2010 in Form No.56D. The respondent vide communication dated 13.01.2011 called for certain details for considering the application for grant of exemption, which were furnished by the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any other purpose. Therefore, the application made by the petitioner Trust was found not eligible for granting approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act and hence the application was rejected. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Heard Mr.R.Venkadesh Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned standing counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 6. I am of the considered view that the impugned order is an outcome of narrow and pedantic approach on the part of the first respondent, namely the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Though the first respondent in the impugned order has referred to the objects Trust, it lost sight of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by referring to the decision of a Hon ble Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in R.R.M.Educational Society Vs.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2011] 339 ITR 323 (AP). The Division Bench while considering the objects of the Society in the said case held that the main or primary objects are distributive, each and everyone of the objects must relate to education in order that the institution may be held entitled for the benefits under Section 10(23-c)(vi) of the Act. In paragraph 2 of the Judgement, the objects of the Society have been set out where apart from opening institutions, the said Society was desirous of opening hostels for poor students, organising workshop etc., Therefore, in my view, the said decision cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the expression any educational institution occurring in Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, should be given a wider meaning. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote paragraph 12 of the judgment, which reads as follows: 12. On the contrary, the Supreme Court has given wider meaning to the expression any educational institution occurring in Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Under this phrase, even those institutions would be covered which may or may not have to do anything with the university. The courts have expressed the opinion, by catena of judgments, that categories provided in the aforesaid provision are so different that the university cannot be the genus and other educational institution the species thereof. Once a col ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incomes falling within those categories are completely exempt from the purview of the Act, as they are not at all to be included in the total income of the assessee. Therefore, such type of exemption/s has/ have to be distinguished from certain types of income, which are included in the total income of the assessee, but in respect of which statute provides relief by way of deduction in computing the total income, by granting rebate of tax and by granting certain other reliefs from the tax payers. 10. Thus, applying the decisions in the case of Jaypee Institute of Information Technology Society Vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) reported in (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 124 and Tamil Nadu Kalvi Kapu Arakkattalai Vs. Chief Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
