{"id":7667,"date":"2014-02-21T18:23:20","date_gmt":"2014-02-21T12:53:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=7667"},"modified":"2014-02-21T18:23:20","modified_gmt":"2014-02-21T12:53:20","slug":"visvesvaraya-technological-university-vs-acit-karnataka-high-court-s-10-23c-an-institution-which-regularly-makes-more-than-10-15-surplus-is-existing-for-profit-is-not-eligible-for-exemption","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/visvesvaraya-technological-university-vs-acit-karnataka-high-court-s-10-23c-an-institution-which-regularly-makes-more-than-10-15-surplus-is-existing-for-profit-is-not-eligible-for-exemption\/","title":{"rendered":"Visvesvaraya Technological University vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (visvesvaraya_10_23_exemption.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nS. 10 (23C): An institution which regularly makes more than 10% – 15% surplus is existing for profit & is not eligible for exemption
\n<\/strong> <\/p>\n

S. 10 (23C) (iiiab), (iiiad) and (vi) applies to an institution \u201cexisting solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit<\/em>\u201d. As long as \u201csurplus<\/em>\u201d is \u201creasonable surplus\u201d, 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 \u201csurplus\u201d will have to be read and understood in proper perspective. In our opinion, \u201cSurplus\u201d 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 \u201csurplus\u201d 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 \u201csurplus\u201d which is invested in fixed deposits and fetches huge interest cannot be stated to be \u201cincidental\u201d. 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 \u201creasonable surplus\u201d 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"


\nS. 10 (23C): An institution which regularly makes more than 10% – 15% surplus is existing for profit & is not eligible for exemption
\n<\/strong> <\/p>\n

In our opinion, \u201cSurplus\u201d 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 \u201csurplus\u201d 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 \u201csurplus\u201d which is invested in fixed deposits and fetches huge interest cannot be stated to be \u201cincidental\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7667","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7667\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}