Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.62 seconds)Aditanar Educational Institution vs Additional Commissioner Ofincome-Tax on 5 February, 1997
In the case of Aditanar Educational
Institution Vs. Addl.CIT - 224 ITR 310, it was held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where the
object of the assessee-society is to establish, run,
manage or assist colleges or schools or other
educational institutions solely for educational
purposes and in that regard to raise or collect
31
funds, donations, gifts etc., colleges and schools
are the media through which the assessee imparts
education and effectuates its objects. Explaining
further, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that if the sole purpose for which the assessee had
come into existence is to impart education at the
levels of colleges and schools, such an education
society should be regarded as an educational
institution coming within Section 10(22). It was
further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it
would not be possible or proper to lay down in any
precise terms as to what would be the income of
the educational institution which would qualify for
exemption u/s 10(22) and what would be outside
the exemption. The answer would depend upon the
facts of each case. It was also held that the
language of Section 10(22) is plain and clear and
the availability of such exemption should be
evaluated each year to find out whether the
institution existed during the relevant year solely
for educational purposes and not for purposes of
profit. After meeting the expenditure, if any
surplus results incidentally from the activity
lawfully carried on by the educational institution,
it will not cease to be one existing only for
educational purposes since the object is not the
one to make profit.
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur vs Kamla Town Trust on 16 November, 1995
30. As regards the ownership of the assets of
Virendra Gram project, it is observed that the land on
which the said project was developed had been initially
purchased and owned by the assessee-society jointly with
other societies. This being the undisputed position and
keeping in view that the factum and quantum of
investment made by the assessee-society in creation of
infrastructure on the said land was accepted even by the
AO after having got the said investment valued from the
DVO, we are of the view that the ownership of the assets
forming part of the said infrastructure to the extent of its
share as determined on the basis of contribution of funds
made has to be taken as duly established. The AO as
well as the learned CIT(A), however, has disputed the
same mainly on the ground that the land belonging to the
assessee-society on which Virendra Gram project had
been developed was subsequently transferred to Shri
V.K.Bhatnagar and his family members in exchange of
some other land and it had thus no more remained the
owner of the land or even the infrastructure created
50
thereon. After having noted that the said exchange of
land was effected by way of a declaratory suit, the
learned counsel for the assessee was directed by us to file
the copies of relevant plaint and compromise decrees
through which the land of the society was exchanged with
land of Shri V.K.Bhatnagar and his family members. A
perusal of the said documents placed by him on record
shows that the land belonging to the society was actually
exchanged only in the month of January, 1998 and the
assessee-society thus had ceased to be the owner of the
said land on which Virendra Gram project was
developed thereafter. It follows that the assessee-society
continued to remain the owner of the said land upto the
end of the previous year relevant to AY 1997-98 and this
being so, the ownership of the assets comprising the
infrastructure created on the said land belonging to it
could not be questioned on the basis of exchange of land
which had taken place only in the previous year relevant
to AY 1998-99. As regards the claim of the assessee-
society for depreciation on the said assets for and from
AY 1998-99, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the
assessee before the authorities below as well as before us
has been that even though the land of the Virendra Gram
project was transferred to Shri Virender Bhatnagar and
his family members in January, 1998 in exchange of
some other land, the ownership of the assets comprising
infrastructure created on the said land continued to
remain with the various societies including the assessee-
society in the ratio of investment made therein. It is no
doubt true that the concept of dual ownership is
recognized by law in India and as held by the Hon'ble
Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pratasth Trust
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Delhi Kannada Education Society on 21 August, 2000
40. On an appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.4.75
lakhs by observing that it was not in dispute that the payments were duly
recorded in the books of account of the assessee society. It was also not in
dispute that the payments were made for construction of school building by
Bhatnagar International School Vasant Kunj. The learned CIT(A) found that
the contribution so made was wholly and exclusively for spread of education
and the amount was utilized for educational activities. The learned CIT(A)
further observed that no material was found during the course of search on
the basis of which, it could be said that such contribution was not made for
68
the purposes of spread of education. The learned CIT(A) relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Delhi Kannada
Education Society, reported in 246 ITR 731.
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Secondary Board Of Education vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward "E" on 5 January, 1972
In the case of Rajinder Nagar
Education Society (supra), Delhi Bench of ITAT has also
taken a similar view. Moreover, the reason given by the
AO to disallow the assessee's claim for loss is also not
well founded. On the one hand, he alleges that the books
of account were not maintained regularly whereas on the
other, he has accepted the figures of surplus reflected in
the income and expenditure account prepared by the
assessee-society on the basis of its books of account by
treating the same as the undisclosed income of the
assessee for the block period. It may also be pertinent to
note here that even the disallowances of various expenses
in the block assessment were made by him with reference
to the figures reflected in the income and expenditure
account which was admittedly prepared on the basis of
books of account of the assessee-society. There was thus
a clear contradiction in the stand taken by the AO while
disallowing the claim of the assessee for loss which, in
our opinion, is not tenable. In that view of the matter, we
uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A)
allowing the claim of the assessee-society for setting off
the loss for AY 1999-2000 against surplus of other years
in the block assessment and dismiss ground No.1 of the
Revenue's appeal.