Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Turst vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mysore on 28 August, 1975
6. The AO was, however, of the view that the assessee provided technical
services to various companies and fee was received for professional/
technical services. The term "education" means to bring up children by
training them properly whereas, in the instant case, the courses offered by
the assessee are not recognised as such by any competent authority. The
assessee institute has not got any recognition either from the state or
central government. In this regard he relied upon the decision in the case of
Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying 208 ITR 608 (Patna) wherein it
was held that the institution which was not authorised, cannot be said to
have any element of normal schooling. He thus concluded that the activities
of consultancy and technical & professional services for which the institute
receives payment are not certainly an educational activity but they are the
jobs done for third parties against consideration. The AO distinguished the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Lok Sikshana Trust
vs. CIT 101 ITR 234 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union vs. CIT 195 ITR 279.
On the facts of the aforesaid cases the activities of developing bankers and
finance professionals are different from fees collected by the assessee from
different parties. In his opinion there should be formal education who, in
turn, should appear for a particular examination such as
diploma/engineering course. He thus concluded that the income earned by
the assessee-trust cannot be treated as income from educational activity
and hence it has to be treated as business income.
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gujarat State Co-Operative Union vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 7 February, 1992
6. The AO was, however, of the view that the assessee provided technical
services to various companies and fee was received for professional/
technical services. The term "education" means to bring up children by
training them properly whereas, in the instant case, the courses offered by
the assessee are not recognised as such by any competent authority. The
assessee institute has not got any recognition either from the state or
central government. In this regard he relied upon the decision in the case of
Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying 208 ITR 608 (Patna) wherein it
was held that the institution which was not authorised, cannot be said to
have any element of normal schooling. He thus concluded that the activities
of consultancy and technical & professional services for which the institute
receives payment are not certainly an educational activity but they are the
jobs done for third parties against consideration. The AO distinguished the
decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sole Trustee, Lok Sikshana Trust
vs. CIT 101 ITR 234 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court in the case of Gujarat State Cooperative Union vs. CIT 195 ITR 279.
On the facts of the aforesaid cases the activities of developing bankers and
finance professionals are different from fees collected by the assessee from
different parties. In his opinion there should be formal education who, in
turn, should appear for a particular examination such as
diploma/engineering course. He thus concluded that the income earned by
the assessee-trust cannot be treated as income from educational activity
and hence it has to be treated as business income.
Dit (Exemptions) vs National Safety Council on 22 January, 2008
In this regard he referred to the decision of the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT vs. National Safety Council
305 ITR 257 and contended that merely because some courses are not
recognised by DG Shipping it cannot be a ground for denial of exemption
under section 11 of the Act. The learned counsel also referred to circular
No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December, 2008 issued by CBDT wherein the
Board observed that having regard to the number of entities engaged in
commercial activities the expression 'advancement of any other object of
general public utility' was amended by Finance Act, 2008 but the newly
inserted first proviso to section 2(15) will not apply where the purpose of
the trust or institution is education even if it incidentally involves
7 ITA No. 5973/Mum/2013
St. Joseph's Technical School
commercial activity. In other words, the view of the CBDT was that so long
as the case of the assessee falls within the broader spectrum of
advancement of general public utility it may amount to charitable purpose.
In the instant case the assessee was mainly engaged in imparting technical
training which were approved by the NCVT. By letting out the premises, the
space is utilised for training the Jet Airways employees and others to
obtain technical knowledge wherein the assessee was also imparting
training and had the benefit of the lab, etc., provided by them, and thus
the rental income and income received for services rendered cannot be
treated as commercial activity since it is for the advancement of the object
of general public utility.
1