Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Rajneesh Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer on 21 January, 1983
The facts in the case of Rajneesh Foundation (supra) were entirely different. There the Trust Deed envisaged embarking on a number of activities not related to its primary object. There was intermingling of several institutions, each carrying on a different activity but put together not having a common denominator called "education". This decision cannot, therefore, be taken advantage of by the department.
Katra Education Society vs Income-Tax Officer, "A" Ward on 28 April, 1977
That a Society like the assessee foundation can qualify for being called an institution is also clear from the decision of the High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) in the case of Royal Choral Society (supra); of the Madras High Court in the case of Aditanar Educational Institution (supra) and of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court In the case of" Katra Education Society (supra) where the assessee was a Society. It is not necessary that an institution should have a building. The word "institution" has not been defined in the Act. Thus the assessee can be treated as an institution. The further point which arises is whether it is an educational institution. This brings us to the import and meaning of the word "education".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Gujarat-Iv vs Sindhu Vidya Mandal Trust on 6 March, 1982
In the case of Birla Vidya Vihar Trust (supra) some of the objects of the assessee trust were other than educational. There is no purpose other than educational so far as the assessee foundation is concerned. Therefore, the second ingredient or prerequisite of Section 10(22) is also satisfied. That the assessee foundation does not exist for the purposes of profit is clear from the objects clause of the assessee's Memorandum of Association and in more specific terms, under item 8 at pages 6 & 7 of the said Memorandum of Association, which is in the following terms :-
Income-Tax Officer vs Devanga Educational Association on 24 February, 1984
(iv) ITO v. Devanga Educational Association [1984] 8 ITD 490 (Mad.)
Hiralal Mallick vs State Of Bihar on 16 August, 1977
The copy of the syllabus recommended by the assessee lists 33 lessons of what is termed as the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI). The nature and benefits of TM have been inimitably expressed by V.R. Krishna Iyer J. while dealing with the mind culture in the case of Hiralal Mallick (supra). It has been described as a science and having a therapeutic effect on the human body and mind. It mentions that extensive studies of TM have been made in many prisons in the USA, Canada, Germany and other countries. It also mentions that a few trial courts in the United States have actually prescribed TM as a recipe for rehabilitation. It has been pointed out in the literature bearing on the subject that TM is not religion and is like physics applied to human consciousness.
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Turst vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore on 28 August, 1975
We are of the view that the text of "Systematic Schooling" laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust (supra), was satisfied by the assessee if we look at its functions and activities.