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.
Issues: (i) whether the university existed solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit so as to satisfy the first condition of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether the university was wholly or substantially financed by the Government so as to satisfy the second condition of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (i): whether the university existed solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit so as to satisfy the first condition of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The governing principle is that the predominant object must be education and not profit, and that the mere existence of surplus does not by itself destroy charitable or educational character if the surplus is incidental and is ploughed back for educational purposes. Applying that principle, the accumulated surplus was treated as having been applied towards educational infrastructure and expansion, and not as establishing a profit motive.
Conclusion: Yes. The university satisfied the first condition and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the university was wholly or substantially financed by the Government so as to satisfy the second condition of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The expression "wholly or substantially financed by the Government" was held to require direct governmental grants or contributions, and not fee receipts collected under the statute. On the facts, governmental funding never exceeded a negligible fraction of total receipts, and the fee collections could not be treated as government financing merely because they were statutorily authorised.
Conclusion: No. The university did not satisfy the second condition and this issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) was denied because, although the institution was held to exist for educational purposes, it was not shown to be wholly or substantially financed by the Government, and the appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), an educational institution must satisfy both the educational-purpose test and the government-financing test; incidental surplus ploughed back for education does not defeat exemption, but statutory fee collections are not equivalent to direct governmental financing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
