2014 (2) TMI 1445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and also not justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee as the Assessing Officer has rightly added income over expenditure at Rs. 57,41,456/- holding that the assessee is imparting education for earning profit and not entitled for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the I.T, Act, 1961. 2. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be cancelled and the order of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 3. Any other ground may be taken at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee but since date of hearing was pronounced in the open court on 22/10/2013 and in spite of this, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before us on this date of hearing and there is no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dispute is covered in favour of the assessee by a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court , which is binding and, therefore, there is no justification in following the judgment of Hon'ble Uttrakhand High Court rendered in the case of Queens Educational Society and St. Paul Sr. Secondary School, Nainital in appeal No. 103 & 104 of 2007 dated 24/09/2007 which were followed by the Assessing Officer. Now we try to find out the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as per which the issue in dispute is covered in favour of the assessee as has been stated by leaned CIT (A). The learned CIT(A) has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Laxmi Pd. and Sons [2009] 31....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Income-tax Vs A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust [1995] 216 ITR 697 (SC) and in the case of S. RM. M. CT. M. Tiruppani Trust Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 230 ITR 636 (SC). It is observed by learned CIT(A) in the same para of his order that it was held in these two judgments that accumulation beyond 25% of the receipts could be done and the procedure laid down in section 11(2) will apply to such accumulation. But the accumulation of income of less than 25% could be done without following the procedure laid down in section 11(2) of the Act. Hence, it is seen that these two judgments are also not relevant on the issue in dispute regarding applicability of provision of section 10(23C)(iiiad) under which exemption has been clai....