TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned the Commissioner of Income-tax (E) erred in declining to grant exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act to the appellant. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (E) erred in holding that the appellant institution was not solely for educational purposes without appreciating that the various activities carried on by the appellant were towards educational purposes of the banking staff and consequently the appellant had fulfilled all the conditions required u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act to avail the exemption as provided therein. 3. The learned Commissioner(E) ought to have appreciated that though various objects provided in the Trust Deed, the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred in failing to understand the vast meaning of the word 'Education' which is not specifically defined under the Income-tax Act and went ahead to distinguish the various judgments placed before him by the appellant by merely stating that the appellant society was not engaged in educational activities in the true sense, 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed." 2. The ld. AR submitted that the issue before the Tribunal was with regard to, whether the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s. 10(23C(vi) of the Act. It was submitted that in the earlier AY 2014-15, the issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal and vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was on these reasons the appeal had been dismissed. However, in the relevant year before the Hon'ble Court the appellant had made a detailed submission before the CCIT citing various case laws to support its case, though CCIT referred these cases tried to distinguish the same to justify the denial of exemption. The CCIT, however, failed to consider the fact that the appellant institution is carrying on educational activity. He had not controverted the fact that the appellant had not carried on any activity of mere consultancy. The appellant specifically brought to the notice of the CCIT that the appellant was imparting training to the personnel of member banks and other objectives enumerated in the Memorandum providing appraisal progra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 of the Act, it did not consider the fact as to whether the institution was eligible for exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act, even though a prayer in this regard was made by the appellant. Further the appellant relied on the following judgments:- (a) Digember Jain Society for Child Welfare vs DGIT(E) 329 TR 459(Del) (b) C.P.Vidya Niketan Inter College Shikshan Soc. Vs. UOI 359 ITR 322 (All) 5. On the similar circumstances, the ITAT, Bombay Bench has held that the appellant was for educational institution. In the appellant's own case the ITAT, Bangalore Bench had not gone into the real issue that the appellant-society was for educational purposes and held that their services were only for consultancy which was cont....