| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
February 21, 2014 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
S. 10 (23C): An institution which regularly makes more than 10% – 15% surplus is existing for profit & is not eligible for exemption
S. 10 (23C) (iiiab), (iiiad) and (vi) applies to an institution “existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit”. As long as “surplus” is “reasonable surplus”, there should not be any difficulty in giving exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act. There could be surplus every year, but the word “surplus” will have to be read and understood in proper perspective. In our opinion, “Surplus” cannot be more than 10% – 15% so as to meet contingencies or unforeseen expenditure. If an University or an educational institution under the guise of “surplus” start making huge profit, in our opinion, it would cease to exist for net making profit and in that event would not be entitled for exemption under this provision. On facts, the University collects huge sums which are 3-4 times more than the requirement. Such “surplus” which is invested in fixed deposits and fetches huge interest cannot be stated to be “incidental”. The constant increase in surplus year after year by way of collection of fees under various heads, more than what is required would not amount to “reasonable surplus” and indicates that the University is systematically making profit. There cannot be any justification to collect the monies under different heads 3-4 times more than what they require to spend for the purpose for which they collect it.
Related Posts:
- University of Delhi vs. UOI (Supreme Court) In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was…
- DIT vs. Autodesk Asia Pvt Ltd (Karnataka High Court) Before proceeding further, we may advert to well settled rules of Interpretation with regard to taxing statutes. The substitution of a provision results in repeal of earlier provision and its replacement by new provision. [See: U.P.SUGAR MILLS ASSN. VS. STATE OF U.P.’, (2002) 2 SCC 645]. The aforesaid principle of…
- Navin Jolly vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court) The usage of the property has to be considered for determining whether the property in question is a residential property or a commercial property. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid two apartments are being put to commercial use and therefore, the aforesaid apartments cannot be treated as residential…
- Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. DCIT (Karnataka High Court) Once a statute requires to pay tax and stipulates period within which such payment is to be made, the payment must be made within that period. If the payment is not made within that period, there is default and an appropriate action can be taken under the Act. Interpretation canvassed…
- V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) Expressing again our anguish and pain on the same, we direct that in future, if any such concession is made by any Authorised Representative on behalf of the Assessees, the Tribunal should take either an Affidavit from Assessee and the counsel on behalf of the Assessee or atleast a written…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
Leave a Reply