Various other appeals excepting Civil Appeal No.8962 of 2010 are filed by the Union of India Central Board of Direct Taxes in cases where the aforesaid judgment in Pine Grove has been followed.
Year 2000 01 and 2001 02, the excess of income over expenditure stood at Rs.6,58,862/ and Rs.7,82,632/ respectively.
In a reference to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, the High Court vide the impugned judgment set aside the judgment of the ITAT and affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 20th February, 2003 rejected the exemption claimed by the appellant.
Since the appellant was established with the sole object of imparting education, it claimed exemption under Section 10 23C iiiad of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The CIT Appeals by its order dated 28th March, 2003 allowed the appellants appeal, and the ITAT, Delhi, by its judgment dated 7th July, 2006 passed an order dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue.
Years 2000 01 and 2001 02 respectively.
It, therefore, becomes necessary to charge certain fee from the students for meeting all these expenses.
It was also numbericed that the appellant society had made investment in fixed assets including building at Rs.9,52,010/ in F.Y. 1999 2000 and Rs.8,47,742/ in FY 2000 01 relevant for Asstt.
The appellant filed its return for assessment years 2000 2001 and 2001 2002 showing a net surplus of Rs.6,58,862/ and Rs.7,82,632/ respectively.
Thus, if the amount of investment into fixed assets such as building, furniture and fixture etc.
The present appeals relate to a companymon judgment dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital in two income tax appeals, and a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 29th January, 2010 in Pine Grove International Charitable Trust v. Union of India 2010 327 ITR 273 .
A large number of writ petitions were heard in Civil Writ Petition No.
were also kept in view, there was hardly any surplus left The assessee society is undoubtedly engaged in imparting education and has to maintain a teaching and number teaching staff and has to pay for their salaries and other incidental expenses.
The facts necessary to understand the companytroversy in the two income tax appeals before the Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, may be gleaned from the facts of one of them, namely, the Queens Educational Society case.
F.Nariman, J. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
