Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income

20 SOT 353Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#2277 most cited

What is Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income authority for?

An educational institution that collects money over and above the prescribed rates, essentially acting as a vendor of education for profit, may not be considered a charitable institution under Section 2(15) and may be viewed as operating with a profit motive.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Vodithala Education Society · Section 2(15) · profit motive · charitable institution · sale of education · capitation fee · educational institutions · ITAT Hyderabad

Issues it is cited on

section 164(2)section 13(8)section 11(1)(d)section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registrationcorpus donationsection 271aabsection 13(1)section 11(1)dumb documentssection 132(4a)

Judgments citing Vodithala Educational Society v. Assistant Director of Income

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)

…ions of Income tax Act. Accordingly, he held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In this regard, he also took support of the decision rendered by Hyderabad bench of ITAT in the case of Vodithala Education Society vs. ADIT (2008)(20 SOT 353). Accordingly, the AO did not allow exemption u/s 11 of the Act in all the years under consideration. ITA Nos.709 to 712 /Bang/2018 ITA Nos.1142 to 1148 /Bang/2018 CO Nos.88 to 89 /Bang/2018 Page 13 of 73 13. Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of search, validity of assessments done u/s 153A of the Act and the validity of ap…

DDIT (E) I (2), Mumbai vs. The Society of Franciscan ( Hospitaller) Sister, Mumbai

ITA 5582/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2534/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2535/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5582/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Ddit (E) I (2) Society Of Franciscn R.No. 504, Piramal (Hospitaller) Sisters Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Mount Mary Convent, Vs. Mumbai-12 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt3991P

For Appellant: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi, AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…dren have taken admission during the year. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the assessee is accepting the capitation fees. The AO following the decision of co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Vodithala Education Society Vs. ADIT (Exem.) 20 SOT 353, denied the claim of exemption by holding that the assessee trust is collected the donations from students and the said donation is offered as a part of the fee prescribed by the Government. According to the AO, the assessee is selling the education and element of charity is missing. Hence, he disallowed the claim of exemption under section 11(1)…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Society of Franciscan (Hospitaller ) Sister, Mumbai

ITA 2535/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2534/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2535/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5582/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Ddit (E) I (2) Society Of Franciscn R.No. 504, Piramal (Hospitaller) Sisters Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Mount Mary Convent, Vs. Mumbai-12 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt3991P

For Appellant: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi, AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…dren have taken admission during the year. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the assessee is accepting the capitation fees. The AO following the decision of co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Vodithala Education Society Vs. ADIT (Exem.) 20 SOT 353, denied the claim of exemption by holding that the assessee trust is collected the donations from students and the said donation is offered as a part of the fee prescribed by the Government. According to the AO, the assessee is selling the education and element of charity is missing. Hence, he disallowed the claim of exemption under section 11(1)…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Society of Franciscan (Hospitaller ) Sister, Mumbai

ITA 2534/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2534/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2535/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5582/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Ddit (E) I (2) Society Of Franciscn R.No. 504, Piramal (Hospitaller) Sisters Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Mount Mary Convent, Vs. Mumbai-12 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt3991P

For Appellant: Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi, AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…dren have taken admission during the year. Accordingly, the AO was of the view that the assessee is accepting the capitation fees. The AO following the decision of co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Vodithala Education Society Vs. ADIT (Exem.) 20 SOT 353, denied the claim of exemption by holding that the assessee trust is collected the donations from students and the said donation is offered as a part of the fee prescribed by the Government. According to the AO, the assessee is selling the education and element of charity is missing. Hence, he disallowed the claim of exemption under section 11(1)…

Orissa Computer Academy, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 96/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12A

…l institutions like business undertakings as contemplated u/s 11(4) and running them with profit motive. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vodithala Education Society v. ADIT (Exemption), (2008) 20 SOT 353 (Hyd), wherein it was held that the assessee, having collected money over and above the rate prescribed by concerned authority, is not a charitable institution u/s.2(15) as it is a clear case of sale of education and the purpose of organization was to make profit. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee society can be considered as runni…

Orissa Computer Academy, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 208/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12A

…l institutions like business undertakings as contemplated u/s 11(4) and running them with profit motive. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vodithala Education Society v. ADIT (Exemption), (2008) 20 SOT 353 (Hyd), wherein it was held that the assessee, having collected money over and above the rate prescribed by concerned authority, is not a charitable institution u/s.2(15) as it is a clear case of sale of education and the purpose of organization was to make profit. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee society can be considered as runni…

Orissa Computer Academy, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 207/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12A

…l institutions like business undertakings as contemplated u/s 11(4) and running them with profit motive. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vodithala Education Society v. ADIT (Exemption), (2008) 20 SOT 353 (Hyd), wherein it was held that the assessee, having collected money over and above the rate prescribed by concerned authority, is not a charitable institution u/s.2(15) as it is a clear case of sale of education and the purpose of organization was to make profit. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee society can be considered as runni…

Jagannath Gupta Family Trust, Kolkata vs. The CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

ITA 597/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2017

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 12Section 12ASection 132

…cretary representing the Assessee did not offer any explanation rebutting the admissions made by the Treasurer and Secretary of School of Human Genetics & Population Health and supporting his contention relied on the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal reported in 20 SOT 353 (Hyd), except reliance the Ld.DR did not place on record the copy of such decision. 15. Heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The brief facts are that the Assessee is a family Trust under the name and style ‘M/s. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust, which was registered u/s. 12AA of the Act vide order dated 15-05-2008 and…

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

…on of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY reported in 319 ITR 160 and in particular by following the decision of the non- jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad "B" Bench in the case of VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY reported in 20 SOT 353 in preference to the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY and also the express provisions of section 11[7] of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] has seriously erred in upholding the order of the learned A.O. that the amounts collected by 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

…on of the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY reported in 319 ITR 160 and in particular by following the decision of the non- jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad "B" Bench in the case of VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY reported in 20 SOT 353 in preference to the decision of the jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of CHILDRENS EDUCATION SOCIETY and also the express provisions of section 11[7] of the Act, under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] has seriously erred in upholding the order of the learned A.O. that the amounts collected by the…