THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S BEANT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, GURDASPUR (PAN: AABAB8322L)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the ITAT's findings that warranted interference. Regarding the first issue, the Court implicitly agreed with the ITAT's approach, as it did not find merit in the revenue's argument to revert the case for re-examination. On the issue of availing different exemption provisions (issues 2, 3, and 4), the Tribunal held that an assessee is free to avail registration under any alternative provision if more than one is available and the assessee is eligible. The Court found no force in the objection that the assessee should have changed its objects and Memorandum of Association upon being declared an autonomous body, as the facts, circumstances, constitution of members, and objects remained the same. The sole purpose of the autonomous status was to operate as per AICTE rules, and amendments to byelaws did not affect the charitable objects (issues 5 and 6). The Tribunal also noted that the objects clause in the Memorandum of Association, which included providing instruction and research in engineering and technology, encompassed running a school, especially when sanctioned by the government to provide 10+2 courses. The non-mention of all schools and colleges in the MoA did not disentitle the assessee from registration. The ITAT's finding that the CIT(E) had not doubted the objects or genuineness of the activities was also upheld. The ratio decidendi is that the CIT(E)'s satisfaction regarding the objects and genuineness of activities is the primary requirement for Section 12AA registration, and the choice of alternative exemption provisions is permissible if eligibility criteria are met. The operative direction was to dismiss the revenue's appeal. The Court noted that it would be open for the revenue to initiate action under Section 12AA(3) for withdrawal/cancellation if activities were found to be non-genuine.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)] rejected the application of M/s Beant College of Engineering & Technology (the assessee) for registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had previously claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which allowed the appeal and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh, filed an appeal before the High Court against the ITAT's order dated 5.12.2017. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated but the application for registration was filed on 23.3.2016 and rejected on 30.9.2016.
What were the issues?
The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT erred in directing the registration to be accorded instead of reverting it back for re-examination, considering the Allahabad High Court's ruling in CIT, Meerut Vs. M/s A.R. Trust, which held that the Tribunal could set aside the refusal order but not direct registration straight away without satisfaction from the Registering Authority. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in ignoring the finding that the applicant society had consistently availed benefit under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and that educational societies are entitled to go for Section 10(23C)(vi). 3. Whether the ITAT erred in allowing the applicant to change exemption codes mid-stream, when alternatives are to be exercised at the beginning. 4. Whether the Act allows availing exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) for years and then abruptly seeking registration under Section 12AA instead of approval under Section 10(23C)(vi). 5. Whether the ITAT disregarded the fact that the applicant society, after being declared autonomous, should have revised its MoA/Bye-laws and filed them with the Registrar. 6. Whether the ITAT erred in not upholding the fact that the applicant society had not adduced evidence regarding its changed MoA/Bye-laws. 7. Whether the ITAT's order was contrary to the evidence and material on record, and therefore perverse. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that it was free to avail registration under any alternative provision if more than one was available and it was eligible for Section 12AA registration. The change in status to an autonomous body did not necessitate changes to the objects or Memorandum of Association as the core objectives remained charitable. Running a school, even if not explicitly mentioned in the byelaws, was consistent with the broader object of providing education and was in line with government instructions. The ITAT found that the CIT(E) had not doubted the objects or genuineness of the activities. The ITAT also noted that another similar institution had been granted registration under similar circumstances. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the ITAT erred in directing registration without proper re-examination, citing the Allahabad High Court's judgment. It also raised objections regarding the change in exemption codes, the shift from Section 10(23C)(iiiab) to Section 12AA, and the failure to revise MoA/Bye-laws after becoming an autonomous body, and the lack of evidence for such revised byelaws.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 10(23C)(vi),Section 12AA,Section 12AA(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
been made part of this order. The above said notification list includes the assessee also which is indicated at column no. 1 and therefore the objections of Ld. CIT(E) is not relevant. Moreover we find that under similar facts and circumstances, another assessee at Ferozepur by the name of SBS College of Engineering and Technology has been granted registration vide order dated 19.09.2016 placed at P.B. page 156 to 157. The name of said assessee is appearing at column no.
Therefore under same facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(E) should have GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.04.24 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
ITA-269-2018 -8- granted registration to the society. It has been held by various courts including by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that at the time of registration of a society u/s 12AA of the Act, the only requirement is that Ld. CIT(E) should be satisfied about the objects of society and should be satisfied with the genuineness of activities of the society with respect to objects of the society. In the present case the Ld. CIT(E) has not doubted the objects of the society which undoubtedly are charitable in nature and genuineness of activities of the society has also not been doubted.”
In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the revenue in the findings recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to say, it shall be open for the revenue to initiate action under sub-section (3) to Section 12AA of the Act for withdrawal/cancellation of the registration granted hereinabove, in case it comes to the notice of the revenue that the activities undertaken by the assessee are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or Institution or are not charitable in nature in terms of the provisions of the Act. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 5, 2019 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes GURBACHAN SINGH 2019.04.24 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)
- Ss Early Learning Society, Hyderabad vs CIT (Exemption), HyderabadITA 1208/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Sri Vijayadurga Educational Society, Kurnool vs Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), TirupatiITA 2006/HYD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
- DCIT Exemptions Circle 1(1), Kolkata vs South Point Education Society, KolkataITA 2169/KOL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ajanta Educational Trust, Amritsar vs CIT (Exemptions), ChandigarhITA 276/ASR/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2027-28
- Sunflower Academy of Education… vs DDIT, VisakhapatnamITA 363/VIZ/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026