TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 518
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO). 1.1. Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 1.2. Both the parties mutually consented to take A.Y.2013-14 as the lead case and the decision rendered thereon would apply with equal force for other assessment years also in view of the identical facts except with variance in figures. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for 2013-14:- "The below-mentioned grounds of appeal are taken without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case. The DS Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Income Tax Department 1 (NFAC), Delhi has erred in concluding net consultancy fees amounting to Rs 36,59,627/- through its professors to various organizations is not exempt from tax. 2. The DS Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department I (NFAC), Delhi failed to appreciate that the activity in question is not covered by the definition of business. 3. The DS Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department 1 (NFAC), Delhi has failed to appreciate that the case of the appellant is covered u/s 10(23C) of the Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he recommendation of Government of Maharashtra and University of Mumbai, the assessee was granted deemed university status by the University of Human Resource Development, Government of India on 12/09/2008, with all the provisions of UGC for funding and support as the state owned deemed university. When the assessee was part of Mumbai University, the income earned by it formed part of income of the Mumbai University and was exempt u/s.10(23C) of the Act. For the A.Y.2013-14, the assessee filed its return of income u/s.139 of the Act on 10/01/2014 declaring 'nil' income after claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessee is registered u/s.12A of the Act vide order of Director of the Income Tax (Exemptions) Mumbai granting Registration vide Registration No.39711 dated 28/06/2005 and also has approved for exemption u/s.80G of the Act. The ld. AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee received consultancy fee. The ld. AO called upon the assessee to explain why the consultancy fee received should not be treated as business income and brought to tax u/s.11(4A) of the Act. The assessee in response submitted that certai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2010-11 in ITA No.3808/Mum/2015 dated 28/10/2015 wherein the said receipt was held to be taxable u/s.11(4A) of the Act. This action of the ld. AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). 3.1. Though the ld. AO had placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal for A.Y.2010-11 in assessee's own case, we find that this Tribunal for A.Yrs.2011-12 and 2012-13 in assessee's own case in ITA Nos. 6111& 6922/Mum/2016 respectively dated 15/01/2020 had addressed the very same issue and restored the matter to the file of the ld. AO by observing as under:- 6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As regards the assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, in respect of 1/3rd share received from consultation fee, we must observe that while deciding identical issue in its own case in assessment year 2010-11, the Tribunal has upheld the decision of the Departmental Authorities in disallowing assessee's claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of consultancy fee. On a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal passed in ITA no.3808/Mum./ Institute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdictional High Court has held that the test to determine as to what would be a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act is to ascertain what is the dominant object/activity. The Court has observed that if the dominant object is the activity of providing education, it will be charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act, even though, some profit arises from such activity. Therefore, assessee's contention regarding applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act requires examination. Further, assessee's claim of exemption u/ 10(23C)(iiiab) or 10(23C)(vi) of the Act also requires examination keeping in view the orders passed by the learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and also considering the fact that the assessee has been recognized as a deemed university Institute of Chemical Technology and receiving substantial grant from the Government. Since the aforesaid claim of the assessee has not at all been examined by the Departmental Authorities, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-examination and direct him to adjudicate the issue keeping in view t....