Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003
Same view was taken by Apex Court in the case
of Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of
Karnataka & another (2003) 6 SCC 697. If the donations
were received compulsorily for admission of students, the
assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C)
or u/s 11 of the IT Act. Since the lower authorities were
not examined the collection of capitation fees in this case,
in our opinion, the matter requires to be examined by the
assessing officer ITA No.1729/Hyd/2008 Andhra Mahila
Sabha Trust Board, Hyderabad whether the assessee is
collecting the capitation fees from students or not and it is
necessary for bringing the actual facts on record for
deciding the issue effectively. Similar view was taken by
us in the case of M/s. Jamia Nizamia in ITA
No.763/Hyd/2007 dated 30.6.2008, in the case of
4 ITA No. 437/Hyd/2012
M/s. Andhra Mahila Sbha
===================
International Educational Academy, Hyderabad in ITA
No.494/Hyd/2007 and 518/Hyd/2008 for the assessment
years 2002- 2003 and 2004-05 and Sri Sai Sudhir
Educational Society, Hyderabad in ITA No.999/Hyd/20-06
for the assessment year 2003-04.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors (With Other ... on 31 October, 2002
In this case, of the assessee, the only
requirement is that the Tribunal should not act on any
information without putting the same to the party and for
the purpose, in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of T M A Pai Foundations and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2002) 8 SCC
481 and in the case of Islamic Academy of Education Vs.
State of Karnataka & another (2003) 6 SCC 697, the
Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of assessing officer
for fresh consideration. By this act of the Tribunal, we
cannot say that the Tribunal travel beyond the power
vested in the Tribunal, by the statute in respect of the
appeal preferred before it. In our opinion it is open to the
tribunal to interfere with the jurisdictional discretion by the
lower authorities and substitute the same by its own
discretion. When it does so, in proper exercise of its
power u/s 254 by taking into consideration all the relevant
facts into consideration, and in deferring from the
authorities below and exercising its own discretion, the
8 ITA No. 437/Hyd/2012
M/s. Andhra Mahila Sbha
===================
Tribunal cannot be held to act arbitrary or capriciously. In
our opinion, the Tribunal has not committed any error in
remanding the issue back to the file of assessing officer
and the Tribunal is the final fact finding body and the
decision of the Tribunal has not to be scrutinized
sentence by sentence merely to find out whether all the
facts have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or
whether some incidental fact which appears on the record
has not been noticed by the Tribunal in its judgement. If
the court, on a fair reading of the judgement of the
Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant
material and has not taken into account any irrelevant
material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the
Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of
course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are
perverse.
Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. S. Vijayalakshmi on 23 September, 1999
2. CIT Vs. Smt. S. Vijayalakshmi (242 ITR 46)
wherein it was held that an Appellate Authority has
the jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct all errors
in the proceedings under appeal and to issue, if
necessary, appropriate directions to the authority
against who decision the appeal is preferred to
dispose of the whole or any part of the matter afresh,
unless forbidden from doing so by statute.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. on 6 November, 1992
1. CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (203 ITR 497)
(Bom)
Cit vs Itat And Ors. on 2 June, 2006
2. ITO Vs. ITAT & Other (229 ITR 651)
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003
Therefore, we set
aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit back
the matter to the file of assessing officer with a direction
to assessing officer that he shall reconsider the entire
issue in the light of judgement of Supreme Court in the
case of M/s Islamic Academy of Education & Another Vs.
State of Karnataka and Another (supra), and in the cased
of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Others Vs. State of
Karnataka and Others (Supra), and find out whether the
assessee has received any money over and above the
fees prescribed and thereafter decide the issue afresh in
accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity
of hearing to the assessee . We make it clear that the
assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 11 or u/s
10(23C) in case it collected any money by whatever name
it is called i.e., donation, building fund, auditorium fund
etc. etc., over and above the prescribed fee for admission
of students.