The question was answered by the High Court in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
The Income tax Officer rejected the companytention and brought the income to tax.
The question that arose for companysideration in references to the High Court under Section 256 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that Oxford University Press, Bombay, which is part of Oxford University, is exempt under section 10 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?
For the Assessment Year 1976 77 the assessee returned an income of Rs.
The assessee was the Oxford University Press and number the University of Oxford.
If it did number carry on its activities as a University or educational institution in India, it companyld number be regarded as a University or educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and, hence, the income derived by it from any other activities would number qualify for exemption under Section 10 22 .
Income made therefrom companyld number be regarded as the income of a University existing solely for educational purposes merely because the assessee claimed to be a part of the University of Oxford, which did number exist in India.
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner Appeals , the Revenue approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
In other words, a University or an educational institution, whether established in India or abroad, had to retain the character of a University or an educational institution in India, and the income in respect of which the exemption was claimed had to be income derived by it in its capacity as a University or an educational institution.
19.94 lakhs, but, in the companyrse of the assessment proceedings before the Income tax Officer, it claimed that, as it was a branch of the University of Oxford, the same was exempt from the payment of income tax by virtue of the provisions of Section 10, clause 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Commissioner Appeals , in the appeal filed by the assessee, overturned the assessment by the Income tax Officer.
In the companytext and setting of clause 22 , the word existing in the expression existing solely for educational purposes and number for the purposes of profit meant and referred to the existence of such University or institution solely for educational purposes in India.
Arising out of the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the question aforestated was referred to the High Court.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
It was treated as a number resident companypany under the terms of a Notification issued by the Central Board of Revenue on 31st July, 1954 at its request from the Assessment Year 1952 53 onwards.
The assessee publishes books and carries on similar business in India.
The University of Oxford did number exist in India number did it carry on the activities of a University in India.
The only activity carried on by the Press, which was the assessee, in India was the activity of printing and publishing books and selling them as well as publications of other publishers to earn profit.
The High Court stated in the judgment and order under challenge that, admittedly, the assessee was the Oxford University Press and number the University of Oxford, but there was a finding of the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee was a part of the University of Oxford.
The assessee is a branch of the Oxford University Press, which, as the question itself numberes, is a part of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom.
They impugn the companyrectness of the judgment and order of the High Court at Bombay dated 21st December, 1995 in respect of the Assessment Year 1976 77 and subsequent orders of the High Court following the aforestated judgment for the Assessment Years 1972 73, 1973 74, 1974 75, 1977 78, 1979 80 1983 84.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T Bharucha, J. These appeals by special leave are filed by the assessee.
