https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429713 HC held that the trusts' receipts were disguised capitation fees, not voluntary charitable donations, and lifted the corporate veil to expose a systematic quid pro quo for admissions. Statements recorded under s.132(4) (and confirmed under s.131) were admissible absent timely, credible retractions. The assessing officer need not trace the source beyond the donors who paid for seats. Orders of the appellate authority and ITAT were set aside; the trusts were denied exemptions under ss.11 and 12, and all substantial questions of law were answered for the Revenue. en-us Mon, 31 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429713 HC held that the trusts' receipts were disguised capitation fees, not voluntary charitable donations, and lifted the corporate veil to expose a systematic quid pro quo for admissions. Statements recorded under s.132(4) (and confirmed under s.131) were admissible absent timely, credible retractions. The assessing officer need not trace the source beyond the donors who paid for seats. Orders of the appellate authority and ITAT were set aside; the trusts were denied exemptions under ss.11 and 12, and all substantial questions of law were answered for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 31 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429713