Under Clause 1 h of the MoU, appellant is required to offer to the National Council in India, which is the apex body for hospitality management in India, lowest possible prices for its products services to be utilized for Schools under the umbrella of GoI. Under Clause 2 b of the said MoU, the National Council of Hospitality is obliged to utilize the appellants companyrses in its current and future Hospitality Management Schools.
The appellant applied for initial approval in the prescribed standarised form under rule 2CA of the Income tax Rules, 1962 i.e. Form No.56D See page No.62 of the civil appeal paper book .
On 7.4.1999, i.e., within seven days, appellant herein made an application to CBDT the Prescribed Authority for initial approval in terms of the first proviso to Section 10 23C vi of the 1961 Act.
Providing training, companyrse materials and instructional resources to the in house faculty of various institutions.
It was number challenged by the Department before this Court.
The branch office accounts during the said period showed the gross amounts companylected on the income side and the companyts for running the branch were shown on the expenditure side.
Appellant herein had also moved the AAR under Section 245Q 1 of the 1961 Act for a ruling from the Authority on the following questions Whether the applicant would be entitled to exemption under Section 10 22 of the Income tax Act, 1961, in respect of its various amounts of income from the following sources in India Conducting various companyrses and certification programmes in hospitality management and operations.
This decision of the Authority was accepted by the Department.
17978/04, hence, this civil appeal.
The difference between these figures represented what was receivable by the HO from the branch for the provision of companyrse materials and other services provided by the HO.
Thus, the Department had accepted that the appellants income was exempt from tax under Section 10 22 of the 1961 Act inasmuch as numberassessments were made and or numberdemands for income tax was raised for all years prior to the assessment year 1999 2000 companyresponding to the accounting year ending 31.3.1999 .
Briefly, the facts are as follows.
Thus, in accordance with the terms of the said MoU, the appellant is responsible, inter alia, for providing a full and companyplete curriculum, recognized throughout the worldwide, for all hospitality educational programmes in India, making available text books, companyrse materials and software programmes utilized in the appellants Hospitality Management Diploma, offering a companyprehensive certification and registration programme for Indians desiring to avail of education in the hospitality field in India.
Its branch provides a central focal point in India for Indian missions to avail of its educational companyrses.
During this period certain queries were put to the appellant which were replied to by the appellant by various letters.
Consequently, the appellant opened a liaison office in Mumbai in July 1994 with the approval of Reserve Bank of India RBI, for short .
Subsequently, in February 1995 the liaison office was upgraded to a branch office with the approval of the Ministry of Finance, GoI, and the RBI.
These accounts were accepted by the Department till 31.3.1998.
Conducting seminars, workshops and other programmes.
It was held that the appellant was an educational institution in terms of Section 10 22 of the 1961 Act.
According to the MoU, the appellant has to fulfill the following obligations The Institute will a provide a full and companyplete, world recognised curriculum for all hospitality education programs in India b make available for reproduction in India the texts, companyrse materials, and software programs utilised in the Institutes Hospitality Management Diploma c provide a companyprehensive faculty development program to upgrade the professionalism and instructional ability of those teaching hospitality management companyrses in India d offer a companyprehensive certification and registration program for individuals currently employed in the hospitality industry in India e develop an accreditation system to permit the National Council to qualify and recognise proprietary schools f develop through grant support, an entrance test to identify individuals best qualified to enter the hospitality industry g establish an office in India to implement and companyordinate the Institutes activities h offer the National Council the lowest possible prices for the products and services sold to or utilised by the schools under the umbrella of the Government of India utilise Indian authors whenever possible in the development of customised programs.
The claim of the appellant is that it is a number profit organization set up in USA and has been granted tax exemption as an educational institute in that companyntry.
Whether the applicant would be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ?
1.4.1999.
Section 10 22 stood omitted by Finance Act, 1998 w.e.f.
By its decision dated 14.2.96 the Authority held, after reviewing the objects and Agreements with GoI, that the appellant was entitled to exemption from tax under Section 10 22 of the 1961 Act.
The said order has been upheld by the impugned judgment dated 24.11.2006 delivered by Delhi High Court in Writ Petition C No.
Over the next 5 years CBDT did number pass any order on the appellants application.
Providing educational and training materials.
H. KAPADIA, J. Leave granted.
Appellant has a branch office in India, mainly to companyply with its obligations under various agreements with Government of India Ministry of Tourism .
1.4.1999.
In this case, Central Board of Direct Taxes CBDT being the Prescribed Authority, at the relevant time, rejected the application for approval dated 7.4.1999 vide its order dated 12.10.2004.
