TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n complied with, subject to fulfilment of conditions u/s 11 to 13 and directing the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect, while giving effect to the appellate order, thereby in fact, has set aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer, when, as per the amended provisions of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to set aside an assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee is entitled to the exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, when there is clear violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3)(a) of the IT Act as held in the assessment order. 6. The activity of letting out auditorium (functional hall) on rent for marriages and social functions, being not incidental to the main objects of the society, but being covered under the residual object i.e., advancement of any other object of general public utility, having regard to the amount of receipts shown from hall charges (Rs. 13,95,000/- and from commission from Furniture suppliers (Rs. 12,07,500) both aggregating to much more than Rs. 10 lakhs during the previous year 2008-09, under that circumstances, having regard to the provisions of the proviso to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../remuneration paid to these persons was not commensurate to the services rendered by them and in the absence of any evidence of violation of section 13, the exemption u/s 11 could not be denied to the appellant. Respectfully following the decision in the appellant's own case for the preceding year, the third ground of appeal is allowed. 8.0 With regard to the amendment to the bye-laws of the society, the CIT(A) had held in his order cited above that the appellant had obtained a certificate in this regard from the Registrar of Society, that the appellant had filed an application before the DIT(Exemption), and that there was no evidence to show that the CIT(E) had disapproved the proposed amendments in the bye-laws. Under the circumstances, the CIT(A) had decided the issue in favour of the appellant. Following my predecessor, the fourth, fifth and sixth grounds are allowed. 9.0 In view of the above, it is held that there is no basis for the denial of exemption u/s 11 for the appellant for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed the income of the appellant allowing the exemption u/s 11, subject to the directions in para 6 above.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee failed to produce separate books of account for letting out business of the assessee. However, the assessee taken a plea before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 2.8.2011 that separate books of account are being maintained in respect of letting out and produced the same for Assessing Officer's verification and stated that provisions of section 11(4A) are complied with and cited various decisions before him contending that letting out activity is incidental and subservient to the primary of education and care of underprivileged, for which separate books of account are maintained and net surplus therefrom has been utilised only for the charitable object of the trust. 4. However, the fact remains that separate books of account for letting out of function hall were not made available to the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A) not accepted the objection of the Assessing Officer. According to the CIT(A), the assessee has maintained separate books of account for educational activities and letting out of function hall and, therefore, allowed the claim of the assessee. In our opinion, the findings of the CIT(A) are not based on the actual facts. It is mandatory on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... find that the Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundations and others Vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2002) 8 SCC 481 examined the issue of collection of capitation fees for the admission of students over and above fees prescribed by the private institution and held that the institution which are collecting capitation fees for admission of students over and above the fees prescribed cannot be construed as charitable/education institution. Apex Court further observed that the fees collected over and above the prescribed fee for admission of the student has to be constructed as capitation fee. The Apex Court, further observed that the concerned university and regulated body has to take action for withdrawal of the recognition in case it is found that the educational institution received any money over and above the fees prescribed for the courses. Same view was taken by Apex Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka & another (2003) 6 SCC 697. If the donations were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act. Since the low....