Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Exemption v. The Indian Institute of Banking & Finance (Formerly known as The Indian Institute of Bankers) - 2020-LL-0129-140

Citation	2020-LL-0129-140
Appellant Name	Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Exemption
Respondent Name	The Indian Institute of Banking & Finance (Formerly known as The Indian Institute of Bankers)
Court	HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	29/01/2020
Assessment Year	2009-10
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	substantial question of law • charitable purpose
Bot Summary:	Though a number of questions have been proposed, basically the controversy revolves around as to whether Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent - assessee is a charitable association and is eligible for deduction under Section 11 of the Act. Mr. Suresh Kumar has taken us through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal where from we find that Tribunal had followed its own order in the case of the assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal No. 5725/Mum/2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 dated 11.2.2015. In the order passed by the Tribunal on 11.2.2015, it was held that respondent - assessee was an institute for charitable purpose as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. On a query by the Court, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that against the aforesaid order dated 11.2.2015, revenue had preferred an appeal before this Court which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No. 1368 of 2015. Os itxa 1935-17.doc dated 28.3.2018, this Court had dismissed the said appeal by holding that there was no error in the view taken by the Tribunal and no substantial question of law arises therefrom. The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the activity carried out by the respondent-assessee is in the nature of running Coaching Classes or Center and therefore the benefit of Section 11 of the Act cannot be extended to the respondent. In any case, we are informed that no appeals in respect of Section 10(22) and/or(vi) of the Act are pending disposal.

16. os itxa 1935-17.doc R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1935 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption .. Appellant Versus Indian Institute of Banking & Finance (Formerly known as Indian Institute of Bankers) .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Ms. Priyanka Tiwary & Sumandevi Yadav for Appellant Mr.Nitesh Joshi a/w Mr. Sameer Dalal for Respondent CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, revenue for appellant and Mr. Sameer Dalal, learned counsel for respondent - assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) is preferred by revenue against order dated 23.6.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai "I" Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal" for short) in Income Tax Appeal No. 3087/M/2013 for 1 of 4 16. os itxa 1935-17.doc assessment year 2009-10. 3. Though number of questions have been proposed, basically controversy revolves around as to whether Tribunal was justified in holding that respondent - assessee is charitable association and is eligible for deduction under Section 11 of Act. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumar has taken us through impugned order passed by Tribunal where from we find that Tribunal had followed its own order in case of assessee itself in Income Tax Appeal No. 5725/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2008-09 dated 11.2.2015. In order passed by Tribunal on 11.2.2015, it was held that respondent - assessee was institute for charitable purpose as defined under Section 2(15) of Act. 5. On query by Court, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that against aforesaid order dated 11.2.2015, revenue had preferred appeal before this Court which was registered as Income Tax Appeal No. 1368 of 2015. By order 2 of 4 16. os itxa 1935-17.doc dated 28.3.2018, this Court had dismissed said appeal by holding that there was no error in view taken by Tribunal and no substantial question of law arises therefrom. It was held as under:- "8. grievance of Revenue before us is that activity carried out by respondent-assessee is in nature of running Coaching Classes or Center and therefore benefit of Section 11 of Act cannot be extended to respondent. 9. We find that this objection/grievance of Revenue has been taken up for first time across bar. There is no such objection taken before authorities by Revenue. Besides, nothing has been shown to us why it should be considered as coaching class. Further, we find that impugned order of Tribunal has only applied decision of this Court in Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust (supra) to conclude that activities which are run by respondent-institute is educational activity and not in nature of running Coaching Center or Class. Revenue is not able to point why it would not apply. We may also point out that grant or refusal to grant exemption under Section 10(22) and/or (23C) of Act cannot govern application of Section 11 of Act. In any case, we are informed that no appeals in respect of Section 10(22) and/or (23c)(vi) of Act are pending disposal. 10. In above view, question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law as impugned order has only applied decision of this Court in Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust (supra) to facts of present case. 11. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 3 of 4 16. os itxa 1935-17.doc 6. In light of above, no substantial question of law arises in present appeal as well. appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. M. Amberkar Amberkar Date: 2020.01.31 14:47:10 +0530 4 of 4 Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-Exemption v. Indian Institute of Banking & Finance (Formerly known as Indian Institute of Bankers)

Metadata

Judgment