TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The appellant challenged the judgment of the tribunal which partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and modified the order of CIT(A). The substantial question of law framed was whether the ITAT was justified in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and Section 10(23C)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee, an autonomous body established for the publication of Hindi books for postgraduate students, claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iv) in its return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. The AO denied the exemption, stating that the income was not earned from educational activities and classified the activities as trade, commerce, and industry.
The relevant provisions of Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and Section 10(23C)(iv) were examined. Section 10(23C)(iiiab) exempts income of any university or educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit, substantially financed by the State Government. Section 10(23C)(iv) exempts income of any fund or institution established for charitable purposes, approved by the prescribed authority.
Counsel for the appellant argued that the assessee was registered and granted exemption under Section 12AA and carried out activities solely for publishing educational books. The tribunal and CIT(A) were contended to have wrongly rejected the appeal by not considering relevant judgments.
The appellant relied on several judicial precedents:
1. Delhi High Court in Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations vs. DGIT: It was held that an educational institution need not conduct teaching classes to qualify for exemption if its activities are educational in nature.
2. Delhi High Court in Delhi Bureau of Text Books vs. DIT (E): The court emphasized that the publication and distribution of textbooks at subsidized rates constitute educational activities.
3. Patna High Court in Bihar State Text Book Publication Corpn. vs. CIT: The court held that an institution carrying out activities under the directive principles of the State Government, even if registering some income, does not lose its charitable nature.
4. Supreme Court in Assam State Text Book Production & Publication Corpn. vs. CIT: The court recognized the publication and sale of textbooks by a government-controlled corporation as educational activities entitled to exemption.
5. Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board: Similar to the appellant's case, the court held that a state textbook board's surplus used for educational purposes qualifies for exemption.
6. Orissa High Court in Secondary Board of Education vs. ITO: The court held that the profits from educational activities devoted to education do not disqualify an institution from being considered educational.
7. Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Pathya Pustak Nigam: The court emphasized the importance of the nature of activities rather than the income generated.
8. Karnataka High Court in DIT vs. Dharmakasha Rajakarya Prasakta B.M. Sreenivasiah Educational Trust: The court held that substantial government financing and non-profit nature qualify an institution for exemption.
Counsel for the respondent argued that the activities of the appellant did not fall under the ambit of education and were more of general public utility, thus not eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) or Section 10(23C)(iv). The respondent relied on the Supreme Court decision in The Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust vs. CIT, which defined education as systematic instruction and not in a broad sense.
After hearing the arguments, the court noted that the appellant was established by the State Government to ensure the availability of educational books at the grass root level. The substantial amount of receipts from the State Government subsidy indicated that the institution was not profit-motivated. The court concluded that the appellant's activities were educational in nature and entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab).
Conclusion: The court answered the issue in favor of the assessee, holding that the appellant was entitled to the benefit under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as the activities were educational and not profit-oriented. The appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
