DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI vs. THE SOUTH INDIAN EDUCAITON SOCIETY, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, finding identical facts to previous years, followed the coordinate bench's decision and upheld the CIT(A)'s order granting exemption.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an AOP running educational institutions, claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) for AY 2012-13. The AO denied this, but the CIT(A) allowed it, following a previous ITAT order.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee-society satisfied the conditions for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), specifically regarding its sole purpose of education and government financing.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(23C)(iiiab)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).
The ground raised by the Revenue in this appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab), even though the assessee-society failed to satisfy the necessary conditions that it exists solely for education and not for purpose of profit, as huge amount of capitation fee is charged by the assessee-society in cash and also it is not wholly and substantially financed by the Government.
The South Indian Education
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed e-return for the AY 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring therein total income at Rs. Nil. The assessee is an AOP which runs educational institutions. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab). The Assessing Officer (AO) denied the said claim on the ground that in earlier years such claim of exemption was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the same facts.
Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A) followed the order dated 16.09.2015 of the ITAT ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai in assessee’s own case for the AY 2003-04 to AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 6675 to 6683/Mum/2014) and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. DR relies on the order passed by the AO. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee relies on (i) the order of the CIT(A) and (ii) the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the AY 2003-04 to AY 2011-12. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that on identical facts, the ITAT ‘E’ Bench has decided the above issue in favour of the assessee for the AY 2003- 04 to AY 2011-12 (ITA No. 6675 to 6683/Mum/2014) holding as under: “It would not be out of place to mention here that even after the survey and search operation, the Government grants are still received by the institution which establishes the fact that even in the eyes of the Government, the institution is solely existing for imparting education. We therefore, direct the AO to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act.”
The South Indian Education
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026