How many judgments cite Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT?

152 judgments on BharatTax cite Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT (372 ITR 699), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 12AA, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 2(15), Section 10(23C)(v).

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT

372 ITR 699Supreme Court of India2015#653 most cited

What is Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT authority for?

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

152

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 370,744 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Queen's Educational Society v. CIT · Section 11 · Section 10(23C) · Section 2(15) · Section 12A · educational institution surplus · charitable purpose profit motive · predominant object test · income tax exemption

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 255

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 12AA Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 2(15)Section 10(23C)(v)Section 12A Section 139(4A)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 10(22)section 158a section 13(3)section 10(23c)(vi)proviso to section 2(15)section 13(1)(c)section 13(1)interest free advances section 10(23c)section 2(15)application of income

Judgments citing Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT

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

…:- 1 -: ITA Nos2125 to 2128 & 2219 to 2222 /2017 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2125, 2126, 2127 & 2128/CHNY/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-2009 Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Vellore Institute of Technology, Income Tax, 54, Thennamaram Street, Central Circle IV (1) Vellore 632 014. Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. the Scientific & Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4944/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)

…society for charitable purposes would be more than 85%. He has relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens 19 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon. Educational Society vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) in which Judgment of Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court have been overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as relied upon by the A.O. He has also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 300 CTR 1 (SC) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “normal deprecia…

M/S. Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4430/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Uthan Educational Society, Faridabad

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 2657/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaacit Uthan Educational Circle-Ii Society, Faridabad 5E/1A B.P. N.I.T Vs. Faridabad Pan : Aaatu1248C Pan : (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT Uthan Educational Circle-II Society, Faridabad 5E/1A B.P. N.I.T Vs. Faridabad PAN : AAATU1248C PAN : (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 24.04.2018 Date of pronouncement : 18.07.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the department against order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Faridabad for assessment…

M/S Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogik Vishwavidhalya, Hosangabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 325/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 324 & 325/Ind/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vs. Dcit, Vishwavidyalaya, Cpc, Bhopal Bangaluru

Section 10Section 139Section 143(1)Section 35

…7 12259.82 75.18 11995.98 73.57 2015-16 16306.23 4046.41 263.84 4310.25 10056.04 66.90 37.38 2016-17 15030.97 4974.93 4437.38 9412.31 5618.66 9.9 It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens Education Society reported in [2015] 372 ITR 699 (SC) that the surplus generated is to be ploughed back for educational purposes only, which is not satisfied in the case of assessee. In fact, the assessee is generating huge surpluses over the years and at the same time it is accumulating the profits 35 M/s.Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya,Bhopal. and not expending/applying the same for…

M/S Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogik Vishwavidhalya, Hosangabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 324/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 May 2018

Section 10Section 139Section 143(1)Section 35

Sahaj Jeevan Education Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4493/MUM/2016[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4493/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sahaj Jeevan Education Trust Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 9, S. S. Road, (Exemptions) बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Sector 44, Seawoods, Nerul, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Mumbai-400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabts 9039 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Deepak Raje ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

For Appellant: Shri Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 10Section 12A

…ust institution from the benefit of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(vi). He also relied upon the following decisions: 1. Americal Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute vs. CBDT & Others (2008) 301 ITR 86 (SC); 2. Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC); 3. Vanita Vishram Trust vs. CCIT & Another (2010) 327 ITR 121 (Mum); and 4. Allahabad Young Men’s Christian Association vs. CCIT & Others (2015) 371 ITR 23 (All.) 6. He submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) without properly appreciating the facts and applying his mind to the facts brought on record has rejected a…

Iti Education Committee, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemption), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACIT(DR)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

…nal purpose and not for profit are no longer res integra, having been dealt with by Page 11 of 16 a long line of decisions of this Court which have been elaborately noticed and extracted in a recent pronouncement i.e. Queen's Educational Society v. CIT [2015] 372 ITR 699/231 Taxman 286/55 taxmann.com 255 (SC). The principles that emanate from the views expressed by this Court are set out in paragraph 11 in Queen's Educational Society (supra), which are extracted below:— '11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the act…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G. R Goenka Education Society

ITA/871/2017HC Delhi30 Oct 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 40(2)

…) 224 ITR 310 (SC), is of no ITA No.871/2017 Page 2 avail. The ITAT had considered that judgment and analyzed the facts of this case in the light of both the previous judgments as well as the later ruling in Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 699, 716 (SC). 3. The Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the Revenue’s appeal; objects for the respondent – assessee remained unaltered. The extent of fees charged by it ipso facto cannot be the basis to conclude that the purpose for which it was set up had changed. 4. The other ground urged was that the goodwill and moneta…

The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 4958/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhthe Cathedral Vidya Trust Ito (Exemption)-1(1), 6, Purushottamdas Thakurdas Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aabtt5706B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Sh. H. N. Singh Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)

…not impugn upon the eligibility for exemption under section 11 of the Act. The fee is charging for fulfilment of its object and in support of his contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision: i. Queen’s Education Society vs. CIT (372 ITR 699) (SC). ii. Vanita Vishram Trust vs. CCIT (327 ITR 121) (Bom.HC). 5 ITA No.4958/M/2015 - The Cathedral Vidya Trust iii. Tolani Education Society vs. DDIT (351 ITR 184) (Bom.HC). iv. Green Acres Educational Trust vs. DCIT (70 taxmann.com 347) (Mum. Trib.) v. Gagan Education Society vs. ACIT (10 taxmann.com 156) (Agra Trib.) vi. ACIT vs. Mahima S…

M/S. Jaycees Public School, New Delhi vs. CIT, Haldwani

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed with about direction

ITA 4554/DEL/2012[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishijaycees Public School, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Rudrapur D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan:Aaaaj2776K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

…We have carefully considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the 9. order of the Ld. CIT passed under section 12 A A cancelling the registration of the trust w.e.f. 01/04/2007. Hon’ble Supreme Court recently in Queen’s education society versus CIT 372 ITR 699, has held that where a surplus is made by an educational institute which is also ploughed back for educational purpose, the said institution was to be held existed solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of the profit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that:- “11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) may…

Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee with respect to ground

ITA 2615/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiseth Anandram Jaipuria Education Vs. Dcit (Exemption), Society, Exemption Circle, Sector-14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan:Aaaas0860P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. RS Singhvi, CA

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2(15)

…lum of the school and society, the funds have not been used for any other purpose of the educational purposes, the books are on any other subject other than the education imparted by the society. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of t Queens education society 372 ITR 699 approving the decision of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under:- “23. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, by the impugned judgment dated January 29, 2010, expressed its dissatisfaction with the view taken by the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Queens' Educational Society as follows* : Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education…

Dehradun Public School, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA No. 1387/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2733/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 271

…t is considered as a separate business activity in terms of section 11 (4A) by relying on the decision of the Hon‟ble Uttarakhand High Court in case of Queen‟s education society. Decision relied up on by the ld AO has been reversed by the Hon Supreme court in 372 ITR 699 (SC) where in it is held that :- “11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows: (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 solely for educational purpo…

West Bengal Municipal, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2265/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2265/Kol/2016

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Tiwari, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(g)Section 2(15)

…d by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in American School of Bombay Education Trust and Others - Vs. - Union of India and Others [ (2015) 377 ITR 645 (Del.) ], following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Queen’s Educational Society - Vs.- C.I.T. [(2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) ]. 8. We agree with the aforesaid submissions of the assessee and hold that there is no justification for refusing grant of registration to the assessee. The registration is accordingly directed to be granted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court…

M/S. Roland Educational and Charitable Trust, Ganjam vs. Principal CCIT, Bhubaneswar

ITA 433/CTK/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhroland Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs. Principal Cit, 2Nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Berhampur, Odisha. District – Ganjam (Odisha).

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 10

…) has exceeded his jurisdiction to decline the approval for exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. ITA No.433/CTK./2015 18 27. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment cited as Queen’s Educational Society vs. CIT – (2015) 372 ITR 699 (SC) explained the provisions contained u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) & (vi) as under :- “11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) maybe summed up as follows: (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 i…

Roland Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ganjam vs. Principal CCIT, Bhubaneswar

ITA 432/CTK/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhroland Educational & Charitable Trust, Vs. Principal Cit, 2Nd Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Bhubaneshwar, Berhampur, Odisha. District – Ganjam (Odisha).

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 10

M/S. Sucheta Memorial Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemptions), Faridabad

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 202/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. 2012-13 M/S Sucheta Memorial Trust, Ito (Exemptions), C/O Rra Taxindia, Vs. Faridabad D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi - 110049 (Pan:Aadts5370A)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 M/S SUCHETA MEMORIAL TRUST, ITO (EXEMPTIONS), C/O RRA TAXINDIA, VS. FARIDABAD D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI - 110049 (PAN:AADTS5370A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Department by : Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 07/11/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Gurgaon relevant t…

ACIT(Exemption), Jaipur vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

…er section 13(3) and in view of the provisions of section 13(1), the assessee society is not held eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. 15. Here, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Queen’s Education Society reported in 372 ITR 699 where relevant principles of law have been laid down to determine whether an educational institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for profit. In that case, the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act were under consideration of Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur Hon’ble Supreme Court . The Revenue…

Society for Participatory Research in Asia, New Delhi vs. ITO (E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1553/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Shaily Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ch grants. Further, the Revenue was not able to show that any part of the profit or gains has been transferred to any member of the Assessee society.” 7. As regards the basis of surplus, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT 372 ITR 699 has referred to the judgment in the case of American Hotel & Lodging Association, Educational Institute v. CBDT 301 ITR 86 (SC) and noted as under: “11. Thus, the law common to Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and (vi) may be summed up as foll0ws: (1) Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons,…

` Niharika Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 6183/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2010-11 Niharika Education Society, Addl. Cit, Range-1, C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad. Chamber No.206-07, Vs. Ansal “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaatn 6147 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…379 (Hyd-trib.) 5. OXFORD ACADEMY FOR CAREER OEV. V. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 382 (ALL) 6. Meritta Welfare Trust v CIT [2015] 56 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi-E) 7. DDIT V ICAI (2016) 159 ITD 573 : 70 taxmann.com 54 (Del-Trib.) 8. Queen's Educational Society V CIT [2015] 372 ITR 699 (SC) 9. CCIT V St. Peter's Educational Society [2016] 385 ITR 66: 70 taxmann.com 171 (SC) 10. THIAGARAJAR CHARITIES V. ADDL CIT 225 ITR 1010(SC) 11. ADDL CIT V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MFG. ASS. 121 ITR I(SC) 12. RADHASOAMI SATSANG V CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 13. CIT V NEO POLY PACK (P) LTD. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (DEL) 14. UNION OF INDIA V SATISH PAN…