The Trustees Of Vanita Vishram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
31 Jul 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Trustees Of Vanita Vishram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
31 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
1979-80
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In The Trustees Of Vanita Vishram v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 269 OF 1997
The Trustees of Vanita Vishram ..Applicant
vs.
The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent
Ms.Asifa Khana i/b Mr.S.M.Lala for applicant.
Mr.R.A.Vaishampayan for respondent.
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and
Mr.Vaishampayan, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent. Mr.Vaishampayan undertakes to file
vakalatnama in the above reference within one week from
today. Learned Counsel for the applicant points out that
for the Assessment Year 1979-80 and 1980-81 on the very
same question of law which has been involved in the
present reference, this Court, in the matter of Trustees
of Vanita Vishram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported
in (2006) 280 ITR 345 (Bom), has taken a view that there
is no dispute about the fact that the assessee existed
only for educational purposes, viz. for running schools
and not for the purposes of making profit. The assessee
was entitled to exemption under section 10(22) on interest
earned on surplus funds of the schools run by the assessee
trust. In view thereof the question referred in the above
reference is answered in favour of the assessee and
against the revenue.
KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J
KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.