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>High Court upholds assessee's tax exemption eligibility as autonomous institution under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad Versus Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology</h3> The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad Versus Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology - [2018] 400 ITR 66 ... Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the amendment to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.2. Applicability of Section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Double deduction of income and its impermissibility in law.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility for Exemption under Section 11The primary issue was whether the assessee, an autonomous institution established by the Reserve Bank of India, was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the amendment to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.2009, which included a proviso specifying that activities involving trade, commerce, or business would not be considered charitable, should apply to the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12.The Tribunal held that the assessee was not engaged in any activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business. It emphasized that the assessee's activities, including offering M.Tech and Ph.D. degrees in banking, were aimed at the public utility and did not have a profit motive. The Tribunal referred to the CBDT Circular No.11/2008 and the Finance Minister's speech to support its conclusion that genuine charitable organizations were not intended to be affected by the proviso to Section 2(15).The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, stating that the assessee did not fall under the category of institutions carrying on trade, commerce, or business. Hence, the first question of law was answered against the Revenue.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 13(8)Section 13(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009, was discussed. The Tribunal's finding that the assessee was not engaged in trade, commerce, or business rendered the applicability of Section 13(8) moot. Since the proviso to Section 2(15) did not apply, the conditions stipulated in Section 13(8) were irrelevant. Consequently, the second question of law did not arise for consideration.Issue 3: Double Deduction of IncomeThe third issue concerned whether the income generating such assets, already treated as an application of income and given exemption, led to impermissible double deduction. The Revenue acknowledged that several High Courts had ruled in favor of the assessee on this matter and that the Supreme Court was yet to decide on the Special Leave Petitions arising from those judgments.The High Court referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Medical Trust of the Seventh Day Adventists, which held that the amendment to Section 11(6) effective from 01.04.2015 would operate prospectively. The High Court agreed with the prevailing judicial view that prior to this amendment, the deduction was permissible. Therefore, the third question of law was answered in favor of the assessee.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and did not fall under the proviso to Section 2(15). The second question of law was deemed irrelevant, and the third question was resolved in favor of the assessee, consistent with the prevailing judicial interpretation. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found