AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has raised several grounds in both years but the main grievance in both years is about non granting of exemption u/s 11. Second grievance in both years is about charging of interest and the third grievance which is A. Y. 2012 - 13 only is about non allowing of credit of TDS in part. 3. The appeal for A. Y. 2011 - 12 is filed late by the assessee and the delay is of 16 days. The assessee has made an application for condonation of delay and it is stated in this that the assessee is based at HUBLI and considerable time elapsed in identifying the chartered accountant in Bangalore for preparation and filing of the appeal. In view of these facts, we condone the delay and admit this appeal. 4. It was submitted by the learned AR of the assessee t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....com404 (Delhi) at pages 499 to 528 of PB. 5. He also submitted that relevant extract from Budget Speech, Memorandum Explaining Provisions of Finance Bill 2008 and FM's reply to the debate on Finance Bill, 2008 are available on pages 493 to 494 of the paper book and these should also be considered. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that a categorical finding is given by the A.O. on page 7 of the assessment order that the assessee's main activity for the year under consideration is to run coaching classes by collecting hefty fees for every kind of services. Even before CIT (A), the assessee has filed nothing to controvert these findings of the A.O. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could not be controverted by the assessee. Hence this judgment renders no help to the assessee in the present case. 8. The second judgment cited is also a judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Ecumenical Christian Centre vs. CIT (Supra). In this case, the issue in dispute was granting approval u/s 80G, which was granted up to 31.12.1973 but was refused by the CIT for subsequent period and CIT refused to consider the earlier order and allied evidence produced by the assessee before him and under these facts, it was held that the CIT was not justified in refusing approval u/s 80G for subsequent period. This is also noted by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in penultimate Para that no fees was being charges and scholars....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 0-9, the assessments were completed u/s 143 (3) and exemption u/s 11 was allowed. This was also noted that as per the submission of the assessee, the activities of the assessee were in the nature of education which has been accepted in preceding and subsequent years. And in Para 5.6 of the order, the tribunal has given a finding that the assessee was engaged in education which has been accepted in preceding and subsequent years. The objection in that case this that out of total receipts of Rs. 21.46 Crores, only Rs. 20.65 Lacs was from educational activities. The tribunal noted in Para 6.1 that other receipts were mainly on account of Research & Training Grants Rs. 1591.42 lacs, Contribution Rs. 418.69 Lacs and other income Rs. 136.27 Lac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....through shops, exhibitions and personal contacts. This is also noted that the motive is not generation of profit but to provide training to the needy women in order to equip them in these fields and make them self reliant. This is also noted that there is deficit because fees collected is only for proving food items. In the present case, Fellowship Fees collected is Rs. 11.32 lacs and expenses are only Rs. 6.68 Lacs with a surplus of Rs. 6.19 lacs. Mere surplus is not a deciding factor but in view of overall facts that only coaching is provided without any formal education, the activity is in line with so many coaching institutions being run on commercial line and in absence of any evidence that such coaching is provided at free of cost or ....