9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for "education" under the Income Tax Act of 1961? 2. Heard Shri. S. Parthasarathi, learned Advocate for assessee and Shri. K.V. Aravind, learned Advocate for the Revenue. 3. Brief facts of the case are, assessee, a Staff Training College submitted an application seeking exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) for the A.Y. 2014-15. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru rejected the application. Assessee challenged the said order in ITA No.1408(Bang)2015. The ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal), by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal. 4. Shri. Parthasarathi, for the assessee, submitted that the Commissioner has rejected the application, holding that the applicant should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have found place in the copy of the Memorandum submitted along with the application. Objects No.4 and 7 clearly show that assessee is not an Educational Institution. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner and confirmed by the ITAT, do not call for any interference. 8. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 9. Objects No.4 and 7 read as follows: "4. to assist banking institutions in matters such as appraisal programmes, conducting morale and productivity studies, streamlining organizational structure and to review, from time to time, the the impact of educational training and research activities and offer suggestions for filling the gaps in the banking system; 7. to provide consultancy s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses for weaker sections, was never implemented. 13. In Adithanar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that an Educational Institution, solely for educational purposes and not for any profit, could be regarded as 'Other Educational Institutions'. 14. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that assessee has written to the DDIT to permit deletion of Objects No. 7 and 10. According to the Commissioner, Objects No. 4 and 7 disentitle the assessee from exemption. Shri. Parthasarathi is right in his submission that the Department not having granted permission to delete Objects 7 and 10, cannot record a finding against the assessee. So far as Object No.4 is concerned, we are of the view that assisting Banking Institutions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
