LEELAVATI SOMANY EDUCATION TRUST vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23717/2011HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01078372201115 January 2026Author: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the order dated October 31, 2011, passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula. The Court remanded the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties, acknowledging the need for reconsideration in view of various Supreme Court judgments, including Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and Queen’s Educational Society versus Commissioner of Income Tax, and a co-ordinate bench order in CWP-10104-2011. The competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The issue of whether the trust is entitled to exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) was not decided on merits but was remanded for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Leelavati Somany Education Trust, is an educational trust. It filed an application seeking exemption/approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula, rejected this application through an order dated October 31, 2011. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging this rejection order. The petitioner contended that it does not engage in profit-making activities and is therefore entitled to the exemption.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner, an educational trust, is entitled to exemption/approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-11, given its submission that it does not engage in profit-making activities? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that it is an educational trust and does not have any element of profit-making, thus qualifying for the exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The petitioner relied on various Supreme Court judgments, including Pinegrove International Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and Queen’s Educational Society versus Commissioner of Income Tax. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments for the revenue, but it notes that learned counsel for parties submitted that the matter needs reconsideration in light of the aforementioned judgments and a co-ordinate bench order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23C)(vi)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-23717-2011

Date of Decision: January 15, 2026

LEELAVATI SOMANY EDUCATION TRUST

.....Petitioner

Versus

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA AND ANR.

..... Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI

Present: Mr. Mohit Bassi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate for the respondents.

**** LISA GILL, J.

1.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside order dated 31.10.2011 whereby application of Assessee seeking grant of exemption/approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short – ‘Act 1961’) for the assessment year 2010-11 has been rejected.

2.

It is submitted that there is no element of profit making by petitioner, which is an educational trust. It is, thus, entitled to the benefit of exemption in terms of Section 10(23C)(vi) of Act 1961. 3. Learned counsel for parties submit that present matter indeed needs to be reconsidered in view of various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court 2026.01.31 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23717-2011

-2-

(2010) 327 ITR 73 (P&H), Queen’s Educational Society versus Commissioner of Income Tax (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 47. Learned counsel for parties also refer to order dated 27.11.2025 passed by co-ordinate Bench in CWP-10104-2011 and connected cases whereby matters have been remanded to competent authority to consider the matter afresh.

4.

In view of facts and circumstances as above and specific stand of parties, order dated 31.10.2011 is set aside and matter is remanded to competent authority to reconsider the same and pass fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to parties.

5.

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(LISA GILL)

JUDGE

(RAMESH CHANDER DIMRI) January 15, 2026

JUDGE Rts

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

RITU SHARMA 2026.01.31 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

All 517 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(vi) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →