TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal], Bengaluru, for A.Y. 2012-13 has been admitted to consider following questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act though the assessee - trust has collected more than the fee declared or notified through the 'Karnataka Educational Institutions prohibition of capitation fee Act, 1984' (by the State Government) in the garb of voluntary contributions/corpus fund and this fact of collecting more than the fee notified has been proved without any dispute in as much as the assessee itself furnishing the details? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30.03.2015 holding that income from other source as income by the Trust. The CIT(A) [Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)] confirmed AO's order. The ITAT, by impugned order has reversed the order passed by the AO and held that assessee is entitled for exemption. 4. Assailing the impugned order, Shri Sanmathi for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has collected a sum of Rs. 27,23,55,000/- as donation in violation of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984 ['KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act']. Placing reliance on New Noble Educational Society Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax [2022] 143 taxmann.com 276 (SC) para 70, he argued that since there was violation of provisions of the KEI (Proh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oble Educational Society relied upon by Shri Sanmathi, it is held that the compliance with registration under the different tax law is also a relevant consideration and it can legitimately weigh with the tax authority while deciding the applications for approval under Section 10(23C). 9. Undisputed facts of this case in hand are, the exemption certificate was in force as on the date of issuance of notice. The AO has denied the benefit of exemption by holding that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 27,23,55,000/- as capitation fee in the guise of voluntary contribution. 10. Shri Huilgol pointed out from para 18 of the impugned order that the assessee had filed an affidavit before the ITAT stating that no action under the KEI (Prohibiti....