Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.50 seconds)The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984
Section 10 in The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 July, 1992
Therefore, we are of the view that the receipts of the assessee from the
parents of students is nothing but capitation fees and once capitation fee is
charged for admission of the students by the educational institution, the
educational institution can be held that it is not engaged in charitable
activities, but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and
such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and
abhorrent to our Indian culture.
Section 2 in The Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition Of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
American Hotel And Lodging Association ... vs The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, ... on 24 November, 2006
3. American Hotel & Lodging Association Vs. CBDT (2008)
301 ITR 86
Meenglas Tea Estate vs Its Workmen on 22 February, 1963
5. The learned CIT[A] erred in holding that the appellant has
not lead any evidence to counter to the observation of the learned
A.O. for having relied on the evidence on 7 persons without
appreciating that it was elementary principle of jurisprudence that
the person should know what the accusation he had to face and
the evidence on the basis of which such accusation was made to
study the same and cross-examine the same having regard to the
ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
MEENGLAS TEA ESTATE v. THE WORKMEN reported in
1963 AIR 1719 [SC] consequently, the evidence relied upon by
the learned A.O. to render such finding was in violation of the
principles of natural justice consequently, such finding on the
basis of which the exemption u/s.11 was denied required to be
vacated having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble
ITAT in the case of COLONISERS reported in 41 ITD 57 and
unreported decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court RW
PROMOTIONS P. LTD., in ITA No.1489 of 2013 dated
13/0712015.