Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court Upholds Decision on Income Tax Exemption Criteria</h1> <h3>AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS</h3> AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND OTHERS - [2007] 289 ITR 46 (Delhi) Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for tax exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Application of income generated in India for educational purposes.3. Compliance with the third proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi).Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Tax Exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi):The Petitioner, a branch office of an American educational institution, sought initial approval for tax exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 1999-2000. The head office had already been recognized as an educational institution in the USA and was granted exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) had previously concluded that the head office's activities were purely educational and without profit motive, thus fulfilling the conditions for exemption under the erstwhile Section 10(22) of the Act. However, with the substitution of Section 10(22) by Section 10(23C)(vi) effective from 1st April 1999, the Petitioner filed a new application for approval.2. Application of Income Generated in India:The main contention revolved around whether the income generated by the Petitioner in India had to be applied within India to qualify for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). The Petitioner argued that the surplus funds were remitted to the head office in the USA, implying that the funds were not genuinely surplus but owed to the head office. The Petitioner maintained that the terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) did not explicitly require the income to be applied within India, unlike the provisions of Section 11.The Respondents, however, rejected this argument, stating that the application of income by institutions under Section 10(23C)(vi) should be within India. The impugned order highlighted that the surplus being expatriated outside India could not be treated as application of income for educational purposes by the applicant. The court agreed with the Respondents, noting that the exemption from tax was being granted in India, and it would be irrational to allow such exemption for income applied outside India. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to ensure that the income is applied for educational purposes within India.3. Compliance with the Third Proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi):The third proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) stipulates that the institution must apply its income, or accumulate it for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established. The Petitioner contended that the proviso did not mention that the income must be applied in India. The court disagreed, stating that the words 'in India' must be read into the proviso to make it workable and to conform with the application of the Act, which is not extraterritorial.The court also referred to the legislative history and the amendments brought by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, which aimed to limit tax exemption to educational institutions that adhere to specific conditions regarding the application and accumulation of income. The court noted that clauses (a) and (b) of the third proviso are cumulative, and merely satisfying the condition of clause (b) (investment in specified assets) was not sufficient if clause (a) (application of income) was not met.Conclusion:The court found no error in the view taken by the Respondents and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Petitioner did not fulfill the conditions stipulated under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The application of income generated by the Petitioner in India had to be applied within India for educational purposes to qualify for the exemption. The court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent misuse of tax exemptions and ensure that the benefits are granted only to institutions genuinely operating for educational purposes within India.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found