TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Institution's Profit Motive Denies Tax Exemption</h1> <h3>M/s. SREE CHITHRA EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND FILM SOCIETY Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM</h3> M/s. SREE CHITHRA EDUCATIONAL, CULTURAL AND FILM SOCIETY Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - [2019] 412 ITR 76 (Ker) Issues:1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in denying exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax ActRs.2. Whether the ownership of land on which the educational institution was situated affects the eligibility for the benefit of Section 10(22) of the Income Tax ActRs.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant, a charitable institution running an educational institution, sought exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer denied the claim citing lack of CBSE recognition and ownership of the property in the name of individuals. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing the absence of a profit motive in the institution's activities. However, the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the land was purchased in the name of individuals managing the school, indicating a profit motive. The appellant argued that the institution was not profit-oriented, relying on legal precedents. The Court analyzed Section 10(22) which grants exemption to institutions existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit. It found that the land was purchased in the name of individuals, diverting society's funds for personal gain, indicating a profit motive. Referring to legal cases, the Court emphasized the need to assess the institution's primary objective and profit motive, concluding that the institution did not exist solely for educational purposes and upheld the Tribunal's decision.Issue 2:The Court examined whether the appellant could exclude income from educational institutions for tax purposes under Section 10(22) while showing income from other sources. It highlighted that the exemption is for institutions existing solely for educational purposes. The Court noted that the society had multiple objectives, not solely education, as evidenced by income from cultural activities. The Tribunal's finding that the institution's profits were used for self-aggrandizement due to property acquisition in individuals' names was upheld. The Court rejected the appellant's explanation of inadvertent land purchase, emphasizing the profit motive. Considering the overall objective of the institution, the Court affirmed that it did not exist solely for educational purposes. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision against the appellant.In conclusion, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the profit motive behind the institution's activities and the lack of sole existence for educational purposes, leading to the denial of exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
