https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297546 Charging higher fees did not, by itself, change an educational institution's essential charitable character or justify cancellation of registration under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because its objects remained educational in nature. The use of a trade mark by a licensee or authorised user did not, on that basis, amount to diversion of income under section 13(3), as the benefit from the mark was treated as accruing to the owner. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed on both issues, leaving the assessee's position undisturbed. en-us Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Sep 2021 02:19:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297546 Charging higher fees did not, by itself, change an educational institution's essential charitable character or justify cancellation of registration under section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because its objects remained educational in nature. The use of a trade mark by a licensee or authorised user did not, on that basis, amount to diversion of income under section 13(3), as the benefit from the mark was treated as accruing to the owner. The Revenue's challenge therefore failed on both issues, leaving the assessee's position undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297546