TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Engineering Training Centre (W.P.Nos.9510 of 2011 and 5030 of 2013 relating to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2010-11 and 2012-13) and ii) Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science (W.P.Nos.9511 of 2011, 8201 of 2012 and 5031 of 2013 relating to A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13). 2. In all Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenge orders of rejection of the applications filed by them seeking approval in terms of section 10(23c)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act'). 3. The petitioner is a society established under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The objects of the Society as at present are as follows: 'a) To provide for instruction and training in such branches of learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax (R3) who notes in the narration that a survey under Section 133A of the Act had been conducted in the petitioners' premises during which various incriminating documents had been found. However, he clarifies that since the issues arising therefrom were still under investigation, no adverse inference had been drawn in that regard. 6. The reason for rejection of the exemption claimed is that one of the objects contained in the Memorandum of Association (MOA) was, according to R3, of the nature of 'general public utility' and not 'education'. This, he states, is contrary to the stipulation of Section 10(23C) which requires that the entity seeking exemption exists solely for educational purposes. The offending clause o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts as well. He reiterates the position that, in fact, no extra mural courses have been conducted by the University at any point in time. This factual submission is recorded. Be that as it may, if at all it does come to the notice of the Assessing Authority that the petitioner was, in fact, engaging in activities that are outside the scope of education, the Officer is always at liberty to address the same in the course of assessment. 11. The scope of enquiry when granting approval in terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act has been considered by the Supreme Court in two Judgments, viz., i) Queen's Education Society V. Commissioner of Income Tax (372 ITR 699) and ii) American Hotel and Lodging Association, Educational Institute V. CBD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; applications not maintainable, the respondent considers the same on merits. According to him, the 14th proviso to Section 10(23C) requires that the application for approval be made on or before 30th of September of the relevant assessment year from which exemption is sought. Since 'assessment year' is defined under Section 2(9) of the Act to mean the period of 12 months commencing from 1st day of April every year, the claim would have, according to the respondent, to be made only between 01.04.2012 and 30.09.2012. The present application was made on 30.09.2011 and thus, according to him, was not maintainable. 16. I disagree. The 14th proviso to Section 10(23) was amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 01.04.2009. ....