Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka

2 SCC 666Reported decision1992#3923 most cited
30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 35acsection 10(22)section 11(4)section 115bbcsection 35asection 2(45)anonymous donationsection 60section 11(4a)rectification under section 154corpus fundsection 13(3)

Judgments citing Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2776/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2775/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

…s for our consideration is when the assessee collects money over and above the fees prescribed by the Government, whether it constitutes a charitable institution or not. We find that the apex Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 considered the issue of capitation fee collected by the private educational institutions. His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Bench of the apex Court, observed as follows— "The right to education, therefore, is concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.…

M/S. KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2547/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

…nd for the purpose for which they collect would not amount to reasonable surplus but would amount to more surplus ? 5. Whether the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein it is held that the capitation fee charged is nothing but price for selling education and could not be considered as charitable institution u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 6. Any other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal” 5. The crux of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is with regard to denial of exemption u/s. 11 of th…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1507/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

…nd for the purpose for which they collect would not amount to reasonable surplus but would amount to more surplus ? 5. Whether the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein it is held that the capitation fee charged is nothing but price for selling education and could not be considered as charitable institution u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 6. Any other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal” 5. The crux of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is with regard to denial of exemption u/s. 11 of th…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1506/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

…nd for the purpose for which they collect would not amount to reasonable surplus but would amount to more surplus ? 5. Whether the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein it is held that the capitation fee charged is nothing but price for selling education and could not be considered as charitable institution u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 6. Any other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal” 5. The crux of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is with regard to denial of exemption u/s. 11 of th…

M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1264/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

…nd for the purpose for which they collect would not amount to reasonable surplus but would amount to more surplus ? 5. Whether the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein it is held that the capitation fee charged is nothing but price for selling education and could not be considered as charitable institution u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 6. Any other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal” 5. The crux of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is with regard to denial of exemption u/s. 11 of th…

M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1263/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

…nd for the purpose for which they collect would not amount to reasonable surplus but would amount to more surplus ? 5. Whether the CIT(A) is right in not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein it is held that the capitation fee charged is nothing but price for selling education and could not be considered as charitable institution u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 6. Any other grounds to be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal” 5. The crux of the assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 is with regard to denial of exemption u/s. 11 of th…

M/S ANANDA SOCIAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri P.K.Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 153A

…ch is alleged to have been not accounted for in the books of accounts, is liable to taxed in the hands of the assessee-trust. The AO also referred to the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992)(2 SCC 666) and Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003)(6 SCC 697) and observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken strong exception to collection of Capitation fee. 8 (ITA Nos.2542-2548 & 2654-2660(B)/2017 14. The aggregate amount of fees shown as “agreed” in the seized document for the year relevant to AY 2009-10 was Rs.5,73,87,500/…

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…in its institutions, the AO took the view that these activities are not charitable in nature. He took support of following decisions to hold that the collection of capitation fee is not a charitable activity:- a. Miss Mohini Jain vs. State of Karnataka (1992)(2 SCC 666) b. Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003)(6 SCC 697) Accordingly, he took the view that the collection of capitation fee is against constitutional scheme and prohibited by State enactment. Further, as discussed in the earlier paragraphs, the AO had held that the assessee has violated the provisions of sec.13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(3) o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.CHILDREN'S EDUCATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above and the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2165/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 69

…y. Therefore the assessee trust has violated the provisions of the "Karnataka Educational Institutions Prohbition of Capitation Fee Act, 1984". Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms.Mohini Hain vs State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the capitation fee were nothing but price for selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. The A.O. has explained with individual student donation/capitation fee elaborately in his assessment order. In the case of the asses…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.CHILDREN'S EDUCATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above and the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 2164/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 69

…y. Therefore the assessee trust has violated the provisions of the "Karnataka Educational Institutions Prohbition of Capitation Fee Act, 1984". Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms.Mohini Hain vs State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the capitation fee were nothing but price for selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. The A.O. has explained with individual student donation/capitation fee elaborately in his assessment order. In the case of the asses…

M/S.CHILDREN'S EDUCATION SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above and the appeal of the revenue for A

ITA 1914/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 69

…y. Therefore the assessee trust has violated the provisions of the "Karnataka Educational Institutions Prohbition of Capitation Fee Act, 1984". Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ms.Mohini Hain vs State of Karnataka (1992) 2 SCC 666 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the capitation fee were nothing but price for selling education and such "teaching shops" were contrary to the constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. The A.O. has explained with individual student donation/capitation fee elaborately in his assessment order. In the case of the asses…

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

…,000 11,16,97,115 1999-00 2,71,55,378 5,50,06,760 8,21,62,138 1998-99 1,99,85,049 3,54,08,920 5,53,93,969 ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 5 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 (vi) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohini Jain (Miss) vs. State of Karnataka and others (1992) 2 SCC 666 had held that capitation fee collected by private education institutions was nothing but a price for selling education and this was contrary to the edicts in Constitution of India (vii) There were large number of instances of violations coming within the ambit of Section 13(1) (c) of the Act, where income and property of the trust were diverted…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2