CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 344 of 400 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and Ors.

8 SCC 47Reported decision2015#3396 most cited

What is CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 344 of 400 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and Ors. authority for?

Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required for public servants who were or are in service, distinguishing it from Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which does not require sanction for those who have ceased to be public servants.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai · CRL.A. 124/2013 · Section 197 CrPC · sanction for prosecution · public servant · official duty

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 10(23C)(vi)Section 11Section 12ASection 12AASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 2(15)

Issues it is cited on

application of income for charitable purposessection 10(23c)(iv)section 164(2)section 11(6)section 73section 164accumulation of incomesection 43csection 11(1)(a)corpus donationsection 251(2)section 11(1)

Judgments citing CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 344 of 400 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and Ors.

M/S Deshpande Education Trust vs. The Assistant Commissioner of

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/100009/2017HC Karnataka17 Dec 2025

Bench: S G PANDIT,GEETHA K.B.

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…er, the purpose would not be a charitable purpose, but, if it is the latter, the charitable character of the purpose would not be lost.” (emphasis supplied) 16. Moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Queen's Educational Society v. CIT, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 summarised the principles as to ‘charitable purpose’ qua ‘Education’. Albeit, the provision in question in Queen’s Educational Society (supra) was Section 10(23-C) of the Act, it is relevant to produce paragraph 11 of the judgement which assumes significance, which is as under: “11. Thus, the law common to Sections 10(23- C)(iii-ad) and (vi) m…

Jusco Education Mission Foundation, Jamshedpur vs. DCIT Exemption Circle, Ranchi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144ASection 2(15)Section 234B

…institution and the appellant has not violated any of that principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further submitted by the ld. AR of the appellant that in the case of Queen's Educational Society Vs CIT (2015) 55 taxmann.com 255 (SC)/(2015) 8 SCC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the law common to educational institutions under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi) has to be decided as under: "(1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating Persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that it ceases to exist sole…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 981/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 980/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 979/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 978/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 977/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 976/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Sindhi Educational Society ( Madras ), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for all the assessment

ITA 975/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri. V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri. Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr.P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2(24)(iia)

…admissions were received compulsorily for admission of students, the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 10(23C) or u/s 11 of the IT Act....." In the leading case of Queen's Educational Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 47 relied upon by the assessee in its submission, the Apex Court held that if the activity is primarily for educating persons, the fact that Institution makes a surplus/profit which arises incidentally from the Educational activities or public utility activities does not render the Institution a profit making Institution. In the very same judgment, the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sikhya\"O\"Anusandhan

ITA/17/2015HC Orissa03 Jan 2023

Bench: The Itat Against The Respondent-Assessee For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2007-08 Till 2012-13.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12

…n Aditanar Educational Institution (supra), Pinegrove International Charitable Trust (supra) and American Hotel and Lodging Association v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, (2008) 10 SCC 509 and Queen’s Education Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 8 SCC 47, all of which have been relied upon by the ITAT in the instant case. 7. However, this Court notes that in New Noble Educational Society (supra), the Supreme Court in para 88 of the said judgment clarified that “since the present judgment has departed from the previous rulings regarding the meaning of the term ‘solely’, in order to avoid disrup…

Comnr.of Income Tax vs. Sikhya O Anusandhan

ITA/34/2013HC Orissa03 Jan 2023

Bench: The Itat Against The Respondent-Assessee For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2007-08 Till 2012-13.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12

…n Aditanar Educational Institution (supra), Pinegrove International Charitable Trust (supra) and American Hotel and Lodging Association v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, (2008) 10 SCC 509 and Queen’s Education Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 8 SCC 47, all of which have been relied upon by the ITAT in the instant case. 7. However, this Court notes that in New Noble Educational Society (supra), the Supreme Court in para 88 of the said judgment clarified that “since the present judgment has departed from the previous rulings regarding the meaning of the term ‘solely’, in order to avoid disrup…

Cuticon Tn 2019, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3287/CHNY/2019[00]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 13(9)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद: के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3287/Chny/2019 Cuticon TN 2019 CIT(Exemptions) बनाम No.223, L Block, 21st Street, Chennai. / Vs. Annanagar East, Chennai – 600 102. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAEAC-0295-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri K. Ravi (Advocate)-Ld. AR ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri D. Hema…

M/S New Noble Educational Society vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

C.A. No.-003795-003795 - 2014Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 10

…t is—the nature of activity. If the activity like running a printing press takes place it is not 5 American Hotel and Lodging Association v Central Board of Direct Taxes, (2008) 10 SCC 509. 6Queen’s Education Society v Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 8 SCC 47. 7 educational. But whether the income/profit has been applied for non-educational purpose has to be decided only at the end of the financial year.” 8. It was further held that the third proviso was in effect operative after the registration or approval of the trust at the stage of assessment to determine the actual application of in…

Investor Financial Education Academy, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemption) - 4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3007/CHNY/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 80G(5)(vi)

…nder Section 25 of the Companies Act. Even assuming that there was a surplus, can it dis-entitle the assessee for registration under Section 12AA of the Act. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Queen's Educational Society vs. CIT [(2015) 8 SCC 47]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of the various decisions, summed up the law which is common to Sections 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi), in paragraphs 11 and 19, it was held as follows:- 11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows: Where an educational institution carries on the activity of educatio…

Investor Financial Education Academy, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemption) - 4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the substantial questions of law framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3006/CHNY/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3006 & 3007/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Investor Financial Education Vs. The Income Tax Officer Academy, 5A, 5Th Floor, Kences Tower, (Exemption) - 4, No. 1, Ramakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aacci5911R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai Both Dated 28.09.2018 Passed Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) As Well As 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Originally Filed The Application In Form No. 10A For Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 80G(5)(vi)

…nder Section 25 of the Companies Act. Even assuming that there was a surplus, can it dis-entitle the assessee for registration under Section 12AA of the Act. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Queen's Educational Society vs. CIT [(2015) 8 SCC 47]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of the various decisions, summed up the law which is common to Sections 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi), in paragraphs 11 and 19, it was held as follows:- 11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows: Where an educational institution carries on the activity of educatio…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 168/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…arging of the fees, he submitted that it could not be a ground for holding that the school is not for charitable purposes. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Queens educational Society versus CIT (2015) 8 SCC 47. He submitted that in the present case the surplus earned by the assessee is also ploughed back for educational purposes and is it exists only and solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Visveesvaraya technological University versus Asst Commis…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 167/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…arging of the fees, he submitted that it could not be a ground for holding that the school is not for charitable purposes. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Queens educational Society versus CIT (2015) 8 SCC 47. He submitted that in the present case the surplus earned by the assessee is also ploughed back for educational purposes and is it exists only and solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Visveesvaraya technological University versus Asst Commis…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 166/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…arging of the fees, he submitted that it could not be a ground for holding that the school is not for charitable purposes. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Queens educational Society versus CIT (2015) 8 SCC 47. He submitted that in the present case the surplus earned by the assessee is also ploughed back for educational purposes and is it exists only and solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Visveesvaraya technological University versus Asst Commis…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 165/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…arging of the fees, he submitted that it could not be a ground for holding that the school is not for charitable purposes. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Queens educational Society versus CIT (2015) 8 SCC 47. He submitted that in the present case the surplus earned by the assessee is also ploughed back for educational purposes and is it exists only and solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Visveesvaraya technological University versus Asst Commis…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…arging of the fees, he submitted that it could not be a ground for holding that the school is not for charitable purposes. For this proposition he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Queens educational Society versus CIT (2015) 8 SCC 47. He submitted that in the present case the surplus earned by the assessee is also ploughed back for educational purposes and is it exists only and solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Visveesvaraya technological University versus Asst Commis…