TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The petitioner has challenged the following three impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent namely the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai-III. Sl.No. Reference No. Date Assessment Year 1 C.No.C.C.III/7/10(23C)vi)/12-13 26.9.2012 2011 - 2012 2 C.No.CC.III/10(23C)(vi)/13-14/8 27.9.2013 2012 - 2013 3 C.No.CC IT-III/10(23C)(vi)/13-14/11 26.9.2014 2013 - 2014 3. By the said impugned orders, the 1st respondent has denied the benefit of Section 10 (23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Petitioner is a registered Trust. The Deed of Declaration of Charitable Trust of the petitioner dated 11.2.2009 was registered as Document No.146 of 2009 dated 11.2.2009. 5. Earlier the petitioner had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was upheld. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal under Section 260 (A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is pending before the Division Bench of this Court in T.C.A.No.665 of 2011 against the said order 20.06.2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. 9. The reasoning in the three impugned orders bearing reference C.No.CC. III/7/10(23C) (vi)/12-13; C.No.CC.No.III/10(23C)(vi)/13-14/8 and C.No. CC IT-III/10 (23C) (vi)/13-14/11 dated 26.9.2012, 27.9.2013 and 26.9.2014 passed by the 1st respondent namely the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai-III are identical save that in the last mentioned order , it has been mentioned that since the petition has closed down its schools, the application cannot be consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the case may be. 13.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application for approval under the above provision for exemption cannot be denied at the threshold itself merely because the petitioner has been declared to be a Non-Charitable Trust by the 2nd respondent. He submits that such order of the 2nd respondent ipso facto cannot justify the decision to deny the approval contemplated under Section 10 (23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14. In support of the present writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the following decisions of the courts:- i) Aditanar Educational Institution Etc., vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 7 : (1997) 224 ITR (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitions. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered all the above decisions and has approved the decision/judgements of the Punjab and Haryana, and the Bombay High Court. He submits that merely because there were surplus of income over the expenditure incurred cannot by any stretch of imagination allow an inference to be taken that the educational institution had profit motive. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dominant nature of the activity of the petitioner trust was in the field of education and profit was not the motive and merely because the trust deed envisaged creation of hundred schools by 2014 itself does not mean that the intention was to make profit. 17. Per contra, the learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tees of the petitioner are authorised to construct or acquire or take on lease or rent, buildings, land or other immovable properties from the funds of the Trust for the purposes and the objects of the Trust. 21.The relevant document that would be relied upon by the prescribed authority for the purpose of grant of approval under the aforesaid provision would be the constitution of such a person. In this case, it is the Trust Deed. It states that the objective of the petitioner's trust was to provide an organisation that supports the cause of education, including promotion and encouragement of training methods to improve the quality of education by starting institutions to support kinder gardens, primary, high and higher secondary educati....