CIT v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited

210 ITR 299High Court1994#12398 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited

Ashwini Sahakari Rungnalaya & Research Center, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…of the matter is if hospital is run on commercial lines, merely because it is engaged in medical services, it does not per-se entitles to exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act. This proposition is very well dealt with in ‘CIT Vs Pulikkal Medical Foundation’ [1999] 210 ITR 299 (Mad) wherein their Hon’ble Lordships have categorically held that merely because assessee is running hospital/medical service will not by itself entitled to exemption. ITAT-Pune Page 24 of 66 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 12.2 Application of profits towards medical camps / programmes. 12.2.1 Adverting to clause 50(f)((iv) of fi…

Agra Development Authority, Agra vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 124Section 142Section 153

…an essential part without which no charitable activity is possible. Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1) ACIT vs. Thanthi Trust (247 ITR 785) CIT vs Gujrat Maritime Board (295 ITR 561) CIT vs. Pulikkal Medical Foundation (210 ITR 299) CIT vs. Andhara Chamber of Commerce (551 ITR 722) CIT vs. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (130 ITR 186) CST vs. Sai Publication Fund (258 ITR 70) ICAI Accounting Research Foundation vs. D.G. (321 ITR 73) CIT vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corp (159 ITR 1) Queens Educational Society vs. CIT (372 ITR 699) Indian Trade Promotion…

Devki Devi Foundation, New Delhi vs. DIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

ITA 1027/DEL/2012[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 12A

…ve proposition, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers, 121 ITR 1 (SC); ii) Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT, 372 ITR 699 (SC); iii) CIT vs. Pulikkal Medical Foundation Pvt. Ltd., 210 ITR 299 (Ker); iv) Breach Candy Hospital Trust vs. CCIT, 322 ITR 246 (Bom); v) CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra, 130 ITR 28 (SC); 28 vi) CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation: 159 ITR 1 (SC) vii) Victoria Technical Institute vs. CIT: 188 ITR 57 (SC) viii) Aditanar Educational Institution V. ACIT: 224 ITR 310 (SC) ix) Samaritan Societ…

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…nts is done only to subsidise the cost of education of the needy students especially when this scheme of "Public private partnership" is an instrument of State policy. We find support for our above view from CIT vs Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited, 210 ITR 299 (Ker) and Breach Candy Hospital Trust vs Chief CIT 322 ITR 246 (Bom). A careful appreciation of the aforesaid macro view can only lead to the irresistible conclusion that charging of higher fees from affluent students or raising funds for the laudable object of education, which is traditionally a State function, through donations, by an unaided s…

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…nts is done only to subsidise the cost of education of the needy students especially when this scheme of "Public private partnership" is an instrument of State policy. We find support for our above view from CIT vs Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited, 210 ITR 299 (Ker) and Breach Candy Hospital Trust vs Chief CIT 322 ITR 246 (Bom). A careful appreciation of the aforesaid macro view can only lead to the irresistible conclusion that charging of higher fees from affluent students or raising funds for the laudable object of education, which is traditionally a State function, through donations, by an unaided s…

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), Chennai

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…nts is done only to subsidise the cost of education of the needy students especially when this scheme of "Public private partnership" is an instrument of State policy. We find support for our above view from CIT vs Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited, 210 ITR 299 (Ker) and Breach Candy Hospital Trust vs Chief CIT 322 ITR 246 (Bom). A careful appreciation of the aforesaid macro view can only lead to the irresistible conclusion that charging of higher fees from affluent students or raising funds for the laudable object of education, which is traditionally a State function, through donations, by an unaided s…

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), Chennai

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…nts is done only to subsidise the cost of education of the needy students especially when this scheme of "Public private partnership" is an instrument of State policy. We find support for our above view from CIT vs Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited, 210 ITR 299 (Ker) and Breach Candy Hospital Trust vs Chief CIT 322 ITR 246 (Bom). A careful appreciation of the aforesaid macro view can only lead to the irresistible conclusion that charging of higher fees from affluent students or raising funds for the laudable object of education, which is traditionally a State function, through donations, by an unaided s…

Director of Income Tax (Exempt vs. The Delhi Public School Society

ITA/1086/2005HC Delhi03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 1Section 10Section 260A

…th education and fell within the dominant purpose of the DPS society’s objects. Counsel relied on Queens Educational Society v Commissioner of Income Tax (2015)] 372 (ITR) 699 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation (P) Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 299 and Venu Charitable Society v Director Income Tax in support of the contention that the dominant object test is applicable; if that were to be applied in this case, that incidentally the society collected charges for education related services provided to other schools would not rob it of the entitlement to be treated as a charitable trust o…

CIT v. Pulikkal Medical Foundation Private Limited (210 ITR 299) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax