Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

3 SCC 666Reported decision1992#4670 most cited

What is Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. authority for?

Collecting capitation fees for education is considered selling education for profit, which is contrary to the constitutional scheme and Indian culture. Such activities are labelled as 'teaching shops' and are not charitable.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. · capitation fee · selling education · teaching shops · constitutional scheme · Indian culture · charitable activity · Section 11 · education exemption

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 Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Aurora Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 318/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12A

…aw the approval, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A copy of the order will be served on the educational institution and to the Assessing Officer. 6.4 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms.Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhoreent to our Indian culture. Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decisions in case of TMA Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) (8 SCC 481), Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) (6SCC697)…

DCIT, Mysore vs. M/S Marimallappa'S Charity, Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are dismissed and the appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 675/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Veerabhadraiah, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Singh
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 133ASection 2(15)

…tional institution, the educational institution can be held that it is not engaged in charitable activities, but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

M/S Marimallappa'S Charities, Mysore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Mysore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are dismissed and the appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 1492/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Veerabhadraiah, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Singh
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 133ASection 2(15)

…tional institution, the educational institution can be held that it is not engaged in charitable activities, but selling the education in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fees was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. We have also carefully examined the judgments referred to by the parties and in the case of P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons v. ACIT, 324 I…

M/S Kammavari Sangam, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in ITA Nos

ITA 1099/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III &
Section 11

…ceived the capitation fees over and above the tuition fees, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Reliance was also placed ITA Nos.206 & 207/Bang/2014 & 1099/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 31 upon the decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the…

DDIT vs. M/S Kammavari Sangha

In the result, the orders of the CIT(Appeals) in ITA Nos

ITA 206/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III &
Section 11

…ceived the capitation fees over and above the tuition fees, the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1992) 3 SCC 666, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and such “teaching shops” were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian culture. Reliance was also placed ITA Nos.206 & 207/Bang/2014 & 1099/Bang/2015 Page 9 of 31 upon the decision of the Hyderabad Tribunal in the…