TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2011 declaring total income at Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO while verifying assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act, called upon the assessee to furnish various informations including the books of accounts. In response to query raised by the AO, it was submitted by the assessee that the Department of Agricultural Research & Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India vide its letter in DO No.12-35/80-IC-I dated 13 February, 1981 has approved the proposal of ICRISAT for establishing an international school to cater to the needs of the children of the internationally recruited staff of the Institute subject to fulfilling certain terms and conditions. Subsequently, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) vide letter No.DII/451/80(16/38) dated 13.3.2003 has also accorded approval to ICRISAT wherein it has amended certain conditions specifically declaring that the students admitted by the school should have come from an International/British system of education and has to return to the International/British system of education. AO on going through the approval granted by the DARE and MEA noted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rabad has not been granted any immunity or privileges extended as in the case of ICRISAT. b) It has to abide by the law of the land. c) It is clear from the G.Os issued from time to time by the Ministries that granting approval for establishing school for catering the needs of internationally recruited staff is subject to certain terms and conditions. d) The admission to the school will be only to the children of non-Indian Members of the ICRISAT. The school shall not carry on its rolls students of Indian Nationality. However, on behalf of International School of Hyderabad the ICRISAT appealed to the Govt. of India to allow the admission of children of Indian Nationals of the ICRISAT to the School. The same is accorded subject to fulfilling of certain conditions, which were not adhered to by the assessee. e) On verification of the details, it is seen that there are 254 students studying in the school, out of which only 10 students are wards of employees of ICRISAT. These 10 students include foreign and Indian nationals. The rest of the students are not the children of employees of ICRISAT. Though they are either foreign or Indian nationals, the GOs issued by the ,Govt. of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the assessee in the light of the material available on record, did not find any of the objections of the AO for denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act sustainable, except the allegations of the AO that the assessee has collected capitation fee of Rs. 1.75 lakhs per year from each student. The ld CIT (A) relying upon some decisions of the ITAT observed that if donations are received compulsorily from students by whatever name called, viz., donations/ building fund/auditorum fund etc. over and above the prescribed fee from the student, the assessee would not be entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11. Accordingly, she sustained the disallowance of exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. 6. The ld AR before this forum apart from making oral submissions has also filed a detailed written submission. The sum and substance of the argument of the ld AR is to the effect that there being no fee prescribed by any competent authority as far as the assessee institution is concerned, the departmental authorities could not have come to a conclusion that the assessee has collected capitation fee over and above the prescribed fee. The ld AR referring to the Andhra Pradesh E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eable should be subject to such a ceiling as may be prescribed by the authority or by a competent Court. However,the ld AR drawing our attention to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this judgment, subsequently in paragraph 61 of the judgment submitted that however, in respect of private school, maximum autonomy has to be with the management with regard to administration including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and the fees to be charged. Thus, it was submitted by the ld AR that without properly analysing the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the departmental authorities were not correct in denying exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act. In fact to substantiate its claim that there is no prescribed fee, in case of the assessee institution, the ld AR in course of hearing of appeal submitted a sworn affidavit of Dr. Oli Tooher Hancock, the Principal of International School of Hyderabad. 9. The ld AR further submitted, the assessee institution has been functioning for the last so many years and until the impugned A.Y, the Department has never denied exemption to the assessee for the aforestated reasons, though the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h it is affiliated. In this context a sworn affidavit of the Principal of the Institution has been submitted before this forum contents of which are as under: "I, the above named deponenet do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That the Appellent is a non profit educational institution sponsored and managed by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi- Arid Tropics (iICRISAT'). 2. That the Appellant was established by the approval given by the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) vide its letter in D.O No.12-35/80-IC-I dated 13 February, 1981 along with terms and conditions for operation. 3. That subsequently, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) vide its letter No.DII/451/80(16/38) dated 13-3-2003 has given approval to ICRISAT wherein it has amended certain conditions. 4. That the deponent is the Principal of the above named assessee school and hence is fully conversant of the facts deposed below. 5. That the captioned appeal was filed on 3 November 2014 by the Appellent. 6. That the captioned appeal was fixed for hearing on 19 March 2015 and further adjourned to 21 April 2015. The case was partly heard on the said date and is p....