Jairam Educational Trust, CHENNAI v. ACIT, Salem

ITA 1720/CHNY/2013 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 172021714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAATJ3034B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1720/CHNY/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Jairam Educational Trust, CHENNAI
Respondent ACIT, Salem
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 21-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 21-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 25-09-2014
Next Hearing Date 25-09-2014
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 10-09-2013
Judgment Text
/ / / IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH CHENNAI . ! ' #$ % & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1720 & 1765/MDS./2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2004-05 & 2006-07) M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST NO.2 DEIVANAYAGAM STREET SHEVAPET SALEM 636 002. VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-III SALEM. PAN AAATJ 3034 B ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR. D. ANAND ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : MR.GURU BHASHYAM JCIT D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 25.09.2014 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2014 + / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRI EVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A) SALEM DATED 29.07.2013 IN ITA NO.174/2010-11 PASSED U/S. 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) & 250 OF THE ACT AND DAT ED 29.07.2013 IN ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 2 ITA NO.172/2010-11 PASSED U/S. 143(3) READ WITH SEC TION 263 & 250 OF THE ACT ITA NO.1720/MDS./2013 (A.Y.2004-05) 2. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT (A) HAS TAKEN UP EIGHT GROUNDS BEFORE US; HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT:- (I) LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED BY NOT GRANTING THE BENE FIT OF SEC.10 (23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FUNCTIONING WITHOUT ANY PROFIT MOTIVE. (II) LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE TRUST AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTIONS (JAIRAM ARTS & SCIENCE COLLEGE) AS ONE UNIT AND THE REBY AGGREGATING THE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. (III) LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CLA IM OF DEPRECIATION TO ` 20 LAKHS AS AGAINST ` 32 37 813/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. (IV) LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE CORPUS F UNDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY DISREGARDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN EDUCATIONAL TRUST ESTABLISHED ON 26.03.1999 FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 16.07.2004 DECLA RING A LOSS OF ` 26 52 564/-. THE ASSESSEE-TRUST HAD APPLIED FOR REG ISTRATION U/S. 12AA OF THE ACT ON 05.04.2006 AND THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX HAD GRANTED REGISTRATION WITH EFFECT FROM 01. 04.2006. THEREFORE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE AS SESSEE TRUST DID NOT POSSESS REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. SUBS EQUENTLY IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED DONATIONS OF ` 2 16 35 000/- DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2004. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT DURING THAT PERIOD THE LD. A.O OPINED THAT BY VIRTUE OF S EC.2(24)(IIA) OF THE ACT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF ` 2 16 35 000/- IS TAXABLE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND FINALLY ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. SEC.147 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2010. WHILE DOING SO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS ON TWO COUNTS AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 4 ` (I) THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEPRECATION 13 64 757/- (II) CORPUS FUND TREATED AS INCOME 1 33 95 000/- TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME 1 20 30 243/- 4.1 IN ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONCLUSION THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- AS PER THE ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT THE GROSS REC EIPT OF THE ASSESSEE IS WORKED OUT AT RS.93 49 829/-. THIS AMOU NT INCLUDES RECEIPT UNDER TRUST ACCOUNTS OF RS.4 19 698/- AND RECEIPT U NDER COLLEGE ACCOUNT OF RS.89 30 131/-. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJEC TED FOR SUCH AGGREGATION THE ADDITIONAL.CIT RELYING UPON THE J UDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF A.ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TION VS. ADDITIONAL. LD. CIT (SC) 1997 224 ITR 310 HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ABOVE TWO SOURCES HAVE TO BE CLUB BED FOR ARRIVING AT THE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.1 CRORE FOR DETERMINING T HE APPLICABILITY OF SEC.10(23C). THE ADDL. LD. CIT HAS ALSO STATED THA T ONCE THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TAKEN AS TAXABLE ENTITY AS AOP TH E TAXABLE INCOME HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT AS PER ANY OTHER TAXABLE ENTITY UN DER DIFFERENT HEADS OF INCOME FOLLOWING DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED AS UNDER: IT IS SEEN FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED SEPARATE INCOME AND EXPENDITU RE ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF JAIRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST AND JAIRAM ARTS AND SCIENCE COLLEGE. THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WORKS OUT TO RS.4 23 805/- AS PER THE INCOME A ND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXP ENDITURE UNDER THE TRUST ACCOUNT AT RS.48 30 130/- WHICH INCLUDES DEPR ECIATION OF ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 5 RS.41 19 158/-. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN G ROSS RECEIPT OF RS.89 30 131/- FROM COLLEGE ACCOUNT. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE UNDER THE COLLEGE ACCOUNT AT RS .71 76 370/- WHICH INCLUDES DEPRECIATION OF RS.25 51 553/-. THE CIT SA LEM VIDE HIS ORDER U/S.263 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS DIRECTED TH E A.O. TO RE- COMPUTE THE DEPRECIATION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 WHICH IS ALSO PENDING FOR ASSESSMENT. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT T HE DEPRECIATION TO BE ALLOWED FOR THIS YEAR WILL HAVE A BEARING ON THE DE PRECIATION FOR ASSESSMENT 2006-07 THE DEPRECIATION ADMISSIBLE FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ALSO CONSIDERED WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN THE L ATER PART OF THE ORDER. THE DEPRECIATION TO BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE G ROSS RECEIPTS NEEDS TO BE REWORKED. THEREFORE THE NET INCOME FROM COLL EGE ACCOUNT AND TRUST ACCOUNT IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER: ITEM COLLEGE ACCOUNT(RS.) TRUST ACCOUNT(RS.) TOTAL (RS.) GROSS INCOME 89 30 131/- 4 23 805/- 93 53 936/- LESS : EXPENDITURE INCLUDING DEPRECIATION 71 76 370/- 48 30 130/- 1 20 06 500/- BALANCE 17 53 761/- (-) 44 06 305/- (-)26 52 544/- ADD : DEPRECIATION 25 51 553/- 41 19 158/- 66 70 711/- NET INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION 43 05 314/- (-) 2 87 167/- 40 18 147/- THUS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX BEFORE DEPRECIAT ION IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WORKS OUT TO RS.40 18 147/-. THE DEPRECIAT ION ADMISSIBLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISCUSSED AND WORKED OUT IN THE SUCCEEDING PARAS AS HEREUNDER: ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 6 4.2 ACCORDINGLY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REST RICTED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON THE BUILDING TO ` 20 LAKHS AS AGAINST ` 32 37 813/- BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- A PERUSAL OF THE BUILDING ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN OPENING WDV OF THE BUILDING AT RS.2 85 82 363/-. T HE ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE YEAR IS SHOWN AT RS.46 48 646/-. THE DEP RECIATION IS CLAIMED ON THE ENTIRE BUILDING AT RS.32 37 813/-. CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF CLASSES CONDUCTED DURING THE YEAR I.E. TWENTY TWO CLASSROOM S AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF PLINTH AREA THE SPACE AVAILABLE IN THE BUILDING WHICH ALREADY EXISTED AS ON 01.04.2003 IS CONSIDERED TO B E MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR CONDUCTING TWENTY TWO CLASSES STAFF ROOM OFFI CE ROOM ETC. IT IS TO BE NOTED HERE THAT THE OPENING WDV OF THE BUILDING HAS TO BE ADOPTED AT RS.3 05 82 751/- AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AROUND 25 R OOMS WERE USED FOR THE COLLEGE AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLARIFICATION FR OM THE ASSESSEE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWED ON THE BUILDING AT RS.20 00 000/- AS AGAINST RS.32 37 81 813/- ACCORDINGLY RS.12 37 813 IS DISAL LOWED. ACCORDINGLY THE CLOSING WDV OF THE BUILDING FOR NEXT YEAR FOR THE P URPOSES OF DEPRECIATION IS TO BE TAKEN AT RS.3 32 31 397/-. ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 7 4.3 THEREAFTER THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRU ST WAS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER:- TAKING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION INTO ACCOUNT THE NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR IS COMPUTED AS UNDER: NET INCOME FROM COLLEGE AND TRUST AS PER THE ABOVE TABLE BEFORE DEPRECIATION 40 18 147/- LESS : DEPRECIATION TO BE ALLOWED [66 70 717 12 37 813] 53 82 904/- (-) 13 64 757/- 5.1 ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE RECEI PTS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST WHICH INCLUDED THE RECEIPTS OF THE E DUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ALSO HAD EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT AND DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE. 5.2. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO DISMISSED GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO ALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER:- 10.6. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RE COMPUTED THE DEPRECIATION IN THE CASE BASED ON THE OPENING WDV A ND ALSO THE NEED FOR ADDITION AND THE PURPOSE THE ADDITIONS MAY SERV E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MENTIONS THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PR ODUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR COMPETITION OF THE BUILDING. THE APPELLANT AT THIS STAGE ALSO HAS NOT MADE AN ATTEMPT TO FURNISH EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 8 BUILDING OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. HE ONLY STATES THA T THE ASSETS CREATED WERE TO FELICITATE THE STUDENTS AND TEACHERS LIKE C YCLE STAND ETC. 10.7 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT AT NO STAGE HAS FURNISHED EVIDENCE FOR THE ADDITION AND THE FACT THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE DEPRECIATION IN A LOGICAL MANNER TH E APPELLANTS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 5.3. FURTHER LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE DONATIONS O NCE GIVEN THE DONOR RELINQUISHES HIS RIGHT AND PASSES IT ON THE D ONEE AND THEREFORE IT BECOMES INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE AP PELLANT TRUST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS 2(24)(IIA) OF THE AC T. THEREFORE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER BY TREATING THE CORPUS FUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE TRUST TO BE INELIGIBLE FOR THE BEN EFIT OF SEC. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ANNUAL RECEIPT HAS EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. 6.1 BEFORE US LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE TRUST AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE EDUCATIONAL IN STITUTIONS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ONE UNI T AND THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT RECEIVED SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 9 PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) O F THE ACT. LD. A.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT A TRUST MAY RUN MANY INSTITU TIONS UNDER ITS MANAGEMENT AND EACH AND EVERY INSTITUTION/UNIVERSIT Y ETC. SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ONE UNIT. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SEC .10 (23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT ONLY REFERS TO A UNIVERSITY OR AN EDUCATION AL INSTITUTION AND NOT THE TRUST AS A WHOLE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE L D. A.R. PRAYED THAT THE BENEFIT OF SEC. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT SHOUL D BE GIVEN TO EACH AND EVERY INSTITUTIONS FUNCTIONING UNDER THE TRUST IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT THE TRUST AS A WHOLE AND ACCORDING LY THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION RUN BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST WAS ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHILDRENS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IN (2013) 92 DTR (KAR.) 158 WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE COCHIN B ENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DR.C.T.EAPEN TRUST VS.ITO I N ITA NO.135 & 136/COCH/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2014 AND BY TH E DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PARAM HANS S WAMI UMA BHARTI MISSION VS ACIT IN (2013) 140 ITD 429(DELHI) . ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 10 6.2. LD. A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ENTIRE RECEI PTS OF THE TRUST/EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ETC. DO NOT CONSTITU TE THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS MENTIONED U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BUT IT IS ONLY THOSE REGULAR RECEIPTS WHICH PERTAIN TO FEES FOR PROVIDI NG EDUCATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE A NNUAL RECEIPTS U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. LD. A.R. FURTHER C ONTENDED THAT THE OTHER AMOUNTS RECEIVED AS DONATIONS OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE CORPUS FUND OF THE INSTITUTIONS CANNOT BE TREATED AS ANNU AL RECEIPTS AS ENVISAGED U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BECAUSE TH EY WERE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION BY THE DONORS FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THEREFORE THEY DO NOT CONSTITU TE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. LD. A.R. FURTHER DREW ATTENTI ON TO SEC.12(1) OF THE ACT TO DRIVE HIS POINT THAT SUCH RECEIPTS SHAL L NOT BE INCLUDED AS THE INCOME OF THE TRUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.11 O F THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. RELIED IN THE DECISION OF ITAT AGRA BENCH IN T HE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI HARDAYAL SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY IN ITA NO.1 80/AGRA/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 18 TH OCTOBER 2013. ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 11 6.3. LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT H AVE ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE CLAIM OF ` 20/- LAKHS AS AGAINST ` 32 37 813/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT UTILIZED THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTED AREA WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIABLE. IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE BENEFIT OF DEPRECI ATION OF ` 32 37 813/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED. 7. LD. D.R VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE BY STATING THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF THE TRUST SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S10(23C)(IIIA D) OF THE ACT. LD. D.R RELIED IN THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AMRISTSA R BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. VIVEKANAND SOCIETY OF EDUCATION AND RESE ARCH REPORTED IN [2014] 31 ITR(TRIB)177(AMRITSAR) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT:- HELD ALLOWING THE APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE RECEIPTS OF BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS SHOULD HAVE B EEN CLUBBED TOGETHER. WHEN THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE SOCIETY EXCEEDED RS. 1 CRORE THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHO RITY FOR EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME U/S. 10(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS ) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER . ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 12 HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD RIGHTLY GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF THE DEPRECIATION OF ` 20/- LAKHS AS AGAINST THE INAPPROPRIATE CLAIM OF ` 32 37 813/- BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CORPUS FUND RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SEC. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT SINCE THE ANNUAL RECEIP T OF THE ASSESSEE HAD EXCEED THE AMOUNT PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. 9.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 9.2. GROUND NO.(I) AND (II) RELATES TO DENIAL OF E XEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT BY THE REVENUE SINCE THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS EXCEEDED THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT UNDER THE ACT BY AGGR EGATING THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE-TRUST AND THE INSTITUTION R UN BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST. ON THIS ISSUE THE LD. A.R. HAD RELIED IN TH E ORDER OF COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA WHO HAD FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 13 HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHILDRE NS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REPORTED IN (2013) 92 DTR (KAR.) 158 WHEREI N IT WAS HELD THAT:- 17. RULE 2BC OF THE INCOME TAX RULES PRESCRIBES TH E AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSES (III)(AD) AND (III)(AE) OF CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 WHICH READS AS UNDER: '2BC (1) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AD) O F CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10 THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1998 OF ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EX ISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT SHALL BE ONE CRORE RUPEES. (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AE) OF CLA USE (230) OF SECTION 10 THE AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS ON OR AFTER THE 1ST D AY OF APRIL 1998 OF ANY HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTION FOR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS OR MENTAL DEFECTIVENESS OR F OR THE RECEPTION AND TREATMENT OF PERSONS DURING CONVALESCENCE OR OF PER SONS REQUIRING MEDICAL ATTENTION OR REHABILITATION EXISTING SOLEL Y FOR PHILANTHROPIC PURPOSES AND NOT FOR PURPOSES OF PROFIT SHALL BE O NE CRORE RUPEES.]' 18. THEREFORE ONE CRORE OF RUPEES IS THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS WHICH IS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RULES. IN OTHER WORDS IF T HE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS LESS THAN ONE CRORE THE INCOME FROM SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 14 19. SUB-CLAUSE (VI) PROVIDES THAT ANY UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NO T FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROFIT OTHER THAN THOSE MENTIONED IN SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AB) AND SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AD) AND WHICH MAY BE APPROVED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORI TY THEY ARE ALSO ENTITLED TO THE SAID BENEFIT. IN OTHER WORDS SUB-C LAUSE (III)(AB) SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AD) AND CLAUSE (VI) APPLIES TO THREE CATEGORI ES OF INSTITUTIONS. 20. NOW WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE MEANING TO BE AT TACHED TO THE WORD 'AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT'. THE ARGUMENT IS OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SUB-CLAUSE REFERS TO ALL ED UCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SU CH OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS MEANS THE AGGREGATE OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF ALL SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS PUT TOGETHER. OTHERWISE THE USE OF TH E WORD 'AGGREGATE' LOSES ITS MEANING. WE FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE SAI D ARGUMENT. 21. FIRSTLY IF THE WORD 'AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS ' OF OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS TO BE UNDER STOOD AS CLUBBING OF ANN UAL RECEIPTS OF ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY AN ASSESSEE SOCIETY THEN IT WILL ALSO INCLUDE THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION W HICH IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT. IF THAT W AS INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE INTRODUCED SEPARAT E SUB-CLAUSES AS (III)(AB) AND (III)(AD). IF SUCH INTERPRETATION IS PLACED SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AB) BECOMES OTIOSE. THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PL ACE SUCH AN INTERPRETATION. IF AN ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS RUNNING S EVERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IF SOME OF THEM ARE WHOLLY OR SUBSTAN TIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AB) THE IN COME ON BEHALF OF SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXEMPTED FROM BEING COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE A SSESSEE IS RUNNING OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE NOT WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT THEN THE BENEFIT OF THAT EXEMPTI ON IS ALSO EXTENDED TO ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 15 THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIO NS AND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (III)(AD) READING WITH SU B-CLAUSE (III)(AD) ALONG WITH RULE2BC. IT WAS CONTENDED THE LEGISLATURE USE D THE WORD 'AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT' AND 'AMOUNT OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS' AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. THE WORD 'AGGR EGATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED IN CHAMBERS 21 ST CENTURY DICTIONARY AS UNDER: 'AGGREGATE - NOUN = A COLLECTION OF SEPARATE UNITS BROUGHT TOGETHER A TOTAL TAKEN ALTOGETHER BRING TOGETHER.' IN WHARTON'S LAW LEXICON IT IS DEFINED AS THUS: 'A COLLOCATION OF INDIVIDUALS UNITS OR THINGS IN O RDER TO FORM A WHOLE' 22. SIMILARLY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF ADITANAR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX IT WAS CONTENDED THE WO RD 'OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION' REFERS TO THE ASSESSEE SOC IETY AND NOT TO THE INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. IF THE INTENTIO N OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO CLUB THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF ALL EDUCATIONAL INSTITU TIONS RUN BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY THEY COULD HAVE SAID SO IN CLEAR TERMS. ON CONTRARY WHAT IS STATED IN THE SAID SECTION IS THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT S OF SUCH UNIVERSITY OR SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION REFERRING TO OTHER EDU CATIONAL INSTITUTION. OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD WITH TH E CONTEXT OF THE FIRST WORD I.E. THE UNIVERSITY. BOTH IN THE UNIVERSITY END AN Y EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EDUCATION IS IMPARTED. THE UNIVERSITY IS A STATUTOR Y BODY. BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE NOT RU N BY A STATUTORY AUTHORITY WHICH ARE IMPARTING EDUCATION; THE WORD ' OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION' HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER THAN ANY UNIVERSITY. IF SO UNDERSTOOD ALL THAT IT MEANS IS EVERY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 16 OF PROFIT IF THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION EXCEEDS RS.1 CRORE THEN THE INCOME FROM SUCH EDUCA TIONAL INSTITUTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXCLUDED FROM HIS TOTAL INCOME. IN AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION THE AMOUNT ARE CALCULATED P ERIODICALLY. IT MAY BE CALCULATED UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. ALL SUCH AMOUNT R ECEIVED CONSTITUTED RECEIPTS AND THOSE RECEIPTS MAY BE RECEIVED THROUGH OUT THE YEAR. THEREFORE THE WORD 'ANNUAL' HAS BEEN INSERTED. BUT TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION AGGREGATE OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED RS. 1 CRORE I.E. THE TOTAL ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF A YEAR IF IT DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 1 CRORE THEN THE INCOME DERIVED FROM SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIO N IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO COMP UTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 23. NO DOUBT EDUCATION HAS BECOME A BUSINESS A VE RY PROFITABLE BUSINESS ALSO. BUT IT REQUIRES HUGE INVESTMENT. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE EDUCATION TO ALL ITS CITIZENS AS THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ABLE TO SHOULDER THE RESPONSIBILITY COMPLETELY. THEREFORE THE FIELD OF EDUCATION IS NOW THROWN OPEN TO PRIVATE ORGANIZATIO NS. BUT FOR THROWING OPEN THE FIELD TO THE PRIVATE OPERATORS PROBABLY THE COUNTRY WOULD NOT HAVE ACHIEVED IN THE FIELD OF EDUCATION WHAT IT HAS ACHIEVED. THEREFORE LOT OF FUNDS ARE INVESTED IN RUNNING THESE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS EITHER BY CREATING A SOCIETY OR A TRUST. IN COURSE OF TIME T HEY HAVE EXPANDED THEIR ACTIVITY PROVIDING COURSE IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS AT VA RIOUS LEVELS AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THEY HAVE ESTABLISHED MORE THAN ONE EDUCATI ONAL INSTITUTION. EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IS A SEPARATE ENTITY CONTRO LLED UNDER VARIOUS STATUTES FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES. MAY BE THE MANAGEMENT OF THES E EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETIES OR THE TRUST BUT FOR ALL OTHER PURPOSES THEY ARE DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT ENTI TIES. THAT IS THE REASON WHY SECTION 10 (23) (C) IS WORDED AS UNDER: ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 17 'ANY INCOME RECEIVED BY ANY PERSON ON BEHALF OF...' HERE 'ANY PERSON' REFERS TO THE ASSESSEE AND 'ON BE HALF OF' REFERS TO SUCH INSTITUTIONS. IT MAY BE AN UNIVERSIT3 R IT MAY BE AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IT MAY BE A HOSPITAL OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS OF SIMIL AR NATURE. AS ALL SUCH INSTITUTIONS ARE INDEPENDENT ENTITY AND THEY GENERA TE INCOME AND WHEN THAT INCOME IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IT BECOMES THE INCOME IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS SUCH INCOME WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UN DER SECTION 10. THE TEST PRESCRIBED UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION IS NO T THE INCOME OF THE EDUCATIONAL EDUCATION. IT IS THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL R ECEIPTS OF SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION THAT IS PRESCRIBED AT RS.1 CRORE. THEREFORE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THOSE I NSTITUTIONS THE EXEMPTION IS BASED ON THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. EVEN IF T HE WORD 'AGGREGATE' HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS SUGGESTED BY THE REVENUE AS THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SUCH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS PUT TOGETHER PROBABL Y THE SAID PROVISION REGARDING EXEMPTION WOULD BE OF NO USE AT ALL. ESPE CIALLY IF THE SOCIETY IS RUNNING A MEDICAL COLLEGE OR ANY ENGINEERING COLLEG E OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL COURSES THEN THE ANNUAL RECEIPT OF EACH INSTITUTIO N WOULD RUN TO FEW CRORES AND THEREFORE THE VERY OBJECT OF GRANTING EXEMPTIO N TO SUCH GENUINE INSTITUTION WOULD BE LOST. THEREFORE THE WORD ''AG GREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT' HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD WITH THE CONTEXT M WHICH IT IS USED AND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SAID PROVISION WAS INSERTED KEEPING IN MIND THE SCHEME OF THE ACT. THEREFORE IF AN ASSESSEE IS RUNNING SEVER AL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IF ANY OF THEM IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTI ALLY FINANCED BY THE GOVERNMENT THEN THE INCOME FROM SUCH EDUCATIONAL I NSTITUTION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING HIS TOTAL INCOME. SIMILARLY INCOME FROM EACH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION IF THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING ANY AID FROM THE GOVERNMENT WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AGGREGATE ANNUAL RECEIPT DO NOT EXCEED RS. 1 CR ORE RECEIVED BY THE ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 18 ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT INCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING ANNU AL TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.3. MOREOVER IT IS APPARENT FROM SEC. 10(23C)(III AD) OF THE ACT THAT IT REFERS TO UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTIT UTION EXISTING SOLELY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROF IT. IT DOES NOT REFER ABOUT THE ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS TRUST ETC. WHICH I S RUNNING SUCH INSTITUTIONS /UNIVERSITIES. HOWEVER SEC.139 (4C) MA NDATES EVERY SUCH INSTITUTIONS/UNIVERSITIES ETC. AND SUCH TRUST WHICH ARE RUNNING SUCH INSTITUTIONS/UNIVERSITIES TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INC OME WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER SEC.139(1) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER T HERE IS NO BAR UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ANY LAW FOR ANY TRUST TO RU N VARIOUS DIFFERENT INSTITUTION/UNIVERSITY AS INDEPENDENT ENTITIES. THE REFORE ON A DIRECT READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(23C)(IIIAD) TOGETHER WITH 139(4C) OF THE ACT IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT EVERY I NSTITUTION/UNIVERSITY ETC. FUNCTIONING UNDER A TRUST OR SIMILAR OTHER BO DIES SHOULD BE TREATED AS AN INDEPENDENT UNIT AND THE ANNUAL RECE IPTS OF EVERY SUCH INSTITUTION/UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FO R THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW IS FURTHER ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 19 CEMENTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT (SUPRA). THEREFORE WE HEREBY ALLOW THE CONCISED GR OUND NOS.(I) & (II) MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.4. GROUND NO.(III) RELATES TO RESTRICTING THE CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION OF ` 20 LAKHS AS AGAINST ` 32 37 813/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE V IEW THAT THE BUILDING WAS PARTIALLY UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAINING SPACE HAD REMAINED VACANT OR THE CONSTRUCTION NOT C OMPLETED. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO OPINED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE FOR COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING. HOWEVER THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISPUTED WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNTS SPENT FOR CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE THE LD. C IT (A) THAT THESE ASSETS WERE BUILD TO FACILITATE THE STUDENTS AND TE ACHERS BY PROVIDING FACILITIES SUCH AS CYCLE STAND ETC. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT NO AUTHORITY WOULD GIVE A COMPLETION CERTIFICATE FOR BUILDING SUCH AN ASSET. THE REVENUE HAD ALSO NOT MADE ANY INSPECTION OF THE SITE TO ARR IVE AT THEIR CONCLUSION. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE ISSUE IT APPEARS THAT THE REVENUE HAD PARTIALLY DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 20 DEPRECIATION BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. TH EREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS ON THE STAND OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE WE HEREBY DIRECT THE REVENUE TO GRANT DEPRECIATION OF ` 32 37 813/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.5. GROUND NO.(IV) RELATES TO CORPUS FUND RECEIVE D BEING TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS AGGREGATED AS ANNU AL RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ELIGIBILITY U/S. 10( 23C)(IIIAD) OF THE ACT. ON THIS ISSUE THE LD. A.R. HAD RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PARAM HANS S WAMI UMA BHARTI MISSION VS ACIT (SUPRA) WHICH IS ALSO RELIED BY THE DECISION OF AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. S HRI HARDAYAL SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HE LD:- FROM READING OF S.10(23C)(IIIAD) IT EMERGES THAT LEGISLATURE HAD IN ITS MIND ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF SCHOOL OR UNIVERSITY AS THE CASE MAY BE FOR CONSIDERATION OF EXEMPTION LIMIT AND NOT THAT OF T OTAL INCOME OF SOCIETY RUNNING THAT SCHOOL OR UNIVERSITY. TE PRESENT CASE IS OF A SOCIETY RUNNING A SCHOOL. THE SOCIETY BESIDES INCOME FROM RUNNING OF A SCHOOL IS HAVING ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 21 OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME ALSO. THE INCOME FROM INTE REST ON FDRS IS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF SOCIETY AND IT CANNOT BE CONSI DERED TO BE PART OF ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE SCHOOL. THEREFORE ASSESSEE W AS HELD ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10(23C)(IIIAD) AS ANNUAL SCHOOL RECEIPTS DID NOT E XCEED RS.ONE CRORES. MOREOVER IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS RECEIVED THE DONATION TO ADD ON TO ITS CORPUS FUND. THIS FUND MAY BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST IN ORDER TO MEET ITS VAR IOUS OBJECTIVES INCLUDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING THE EDUCATIONA L INSTITUTIONS AS THEIR CORPUS FUND. FURTHER IT CAN BE INFERRED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT(SUPRA) THAT CORPUS FUND RECEIVED BY THE TRUST CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE INCO ME OF THE INSTITUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS FOR GRANTING BENEFIT U/S. 10(23C)(IIIA D) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE WE HEREBY HOLD THIS ISSUE IS ALSO IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1765/MDS./2013 (A.Y.2006-07) 10. IN THIS APPEAL ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED I DENTICAL GROUNDS AS THAT RAISED IN THE CONCISED GROUNDS NO.(II) (III ) & (IV) OF THE EARLIER ITA NOS.1720 & 1765 /MDS/13 M/S.JAIRAM EDUCTIONAL TRUST 22 APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.1720/MDS./2013(A.Y.2004-05) DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE . SINCE ALL THOSE GROUNDS ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALSO DECIDED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME REASON. 11. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN ITS FAVOUR. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST NOVEMBER 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 21 ST NOVEMBER 2014. K S SUNDARAM. '# $%&% /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. '() /CIT(A) 4. ' /CIT 5. %*+ /DR 6. +-. /GF