Educational exemption claim requires fuller inquiry before rejection; incomplete record led to quashing and remand for reconsideration.

Exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and (via) was declined on the view that the petitioner was not an educational institution, but the record was incomplete on whether it existed solely for educational purposes and whether fee collection for examinations indicated profit-making. The HC found that the materials before the authority did not adequately address these questions, so the matter required reconsideration after both sides were allowed to place additional material on record. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order refusing exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) and (via) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The authority rejected the claim on the premise that the petitioner was not an educational institution, but the record before it was incomplete. The material placed did not sufficiently address whether the petitioner existed solely for educational purposes and whether it generated profit by levying fees for conducting examinations. In these circumstances, the controversy required reconsideration after affording both sides an opportunity to place the necessary material on record.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing and submission of additional material.

---