Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.15 seconds)
M/S.Quilon Medical Trust, Kollam vs Assessee on 13 November, 2013 cites

T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002

It is not the intention of the Parliament to exempt any income which was earned contrary to the provisions of the law and contrary to the social norms. Collection of capitation fee is inhuman, contrary to all social norms besides being contrary to the 22 ITA No.19, 20 & 21/Coch/2012 CO Nos. 07, 08 & 09/Coch/2012 provisions of Constitution of India. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors (2002) 8 SCC 481 and Islamic Academic Education vs State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 677. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the term "any income" has to be considered as income of the property held under the trust and the income generated in the course of running of the institution in the legal manner. It cannot include capitation fee collected for admission of the students. In this case, it is not the contention of the revenue that the assessee collected any capitation fee for admission of the students. Moreover, no material is on record to suggest that the assessee has collected any capitation fee for admission of the students. The trustees Shri Abdul Salam and Shri AA Salam happened to be businessmen and admitted that they have invested their own funds in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). accordingly, the same is confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 608 - V N Khare - Full Document

Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003

It is not the intention of the Parliament to exempt any income which was earned contrary to the provisions of the law and contrary to the social norms. Collection of capitation fee is inhuman, contrary to all social norms besides being contrary to the 22 ITA No.19, 20 & 21/Coch/2012 CO Nos. 07, 08 & 09/Coch/2012 provisions of Constitution of India. This view of ours is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Ors (2002) 8 SCC 481 and Islamic Academic Education vs State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 677. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the term "any income" has to be considered as income of the property held under the trust and the income generated in the course of running of the institution in the legal manner. It cannot include capitation fee collected for admission of the students. In this case, it is not the contention of the revenue that the assessee collected any capitation fee for admission of the students. Moreover, no material is on record to suggest that the assessee has collected any capitation fee for admission of the students. The trustees Shri Abdul Salam and Shri AA Salam happened to be businessmen and admitted that they have invested their own funds in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. This Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). accordingly, the same is confirmed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 68 - Cited by 767 - V N Khare - Full Document
1