ACIT (TDS), Jaipur V. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

ITA 1016/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5608 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: M L BORAD
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Competent authority
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1016/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S GANDHI VIDHYA MANDIR, GVM ROAD, SARDARSHAHAR, CHURU LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1017/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S GANDHI VIDHYA MANDIR, GVM ROAD, SARDARSHAHAR, CHURU LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.L. BORAD (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06.12.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/01/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE COMMON APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 16.10.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 & 2013-14. SINCE COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 2 DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. THE COMMO N GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS STUDY CENTR ES AS REVENUE SHARING AND THEREBY RELYING ON DECISION OF RKCL VS. CIT(ITAT, J AIPUR) AND CIT VS. CAREER LAUNCHER (DELHI HIGH COURT), WHEREAS THE FACE OF TH IS CASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THESE CASES. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A SOCIETY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING EDUCATION BY RUNNING SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, V OCATIONAL CENTRE ETC. APART FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS A DEEMED UNIVERSIT Y AFFILIATED UNDER THE UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION ACT, 1956 NAMED AS INS TITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN EDUCATION ( IASE UNIVERSITY ). THE IASE UNIVERSITY IS THE CORE CONSTITUENT OF THE ASSESSEE ENTRUSTED WITH THE HIGH ER EDUCATION PORTFOLIO. THE DISTANCE EDUCATION PROGRAM OF IASE UNIVERSITY IS MA NAGED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE THROUGH 217 COUNSELLING/STUDY CENTERS ALL OVER INDIA. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S .201(1)/201(1A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT PAYMENT OF RS.65,17,56,560/- FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 & RS.4 0,49,97,468/- (TILL 27.02.2013) FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 WAS MADE TO THE STUDY CENTRES AND THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS DEDUCTING TDS U/S. 194C ON PAYMENTS MADE TO THESE STUDY CENTRES WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE DEDUCTOR W AS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S. 194J OF THE I.T. ACT ON PAYMENTS MADE TO S TUDY CENTRES. ACCORDINGLY, THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE BY THE A.O. AS TO WHY ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS AS THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE STUDY C ENTRES WAS IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES AS ENVISAGED U/S 194J AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF A CONTRACT U/S 194C. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE , THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 3 SUBMITTED ITS OBJECTIONS AND REPLY WHEREBY IT ARGUE D THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 19 4J CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO IT. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE OBJEC TION OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE AND GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SERVICES PROV IDED BY THE STUDY CENTRE TO THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL AND MAN AGERIAL SERVICES AND HELD THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE-IN-DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE A MOUNTS FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS HELD TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT ARE TABULATED HEREUNDER: SR. NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR U/S 201(1) U/S 201(1A) TOTAL I) 2012-13 5,21,40,522/- 1,55,06,381/- 6,76,46,903/ - II) 2013-14 3,23,99,797/- 57,32,437/- 3,81,32,235/- TOTAL 8,45,40,319/- 2,12,38,818/- 10,57,79,138/- 2.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194J OF THE ACT AND DELE TED THE DEMAND RAISED BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) ARE REP RODUCED AS UNDER: ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILED SUBMISSION OF THE A PPELLANT AND CASE LAWS CITED, I FIND THAT THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD. 358 ITR 179 AND CIT VS. NIIT LTD., 318 ITR 289 WHERE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR HELD THAT THESE ARRANGE MENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF SHARE OF PROFIT NOT LIABLE TO TDS U/S 194 J. SIMILARLY HON BLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S RAJAST HAN KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 13.03.2015 HELD A S UNDER: THUS THE UNCONTROVERTED FACT WHICH EMERGES FROM THE RECORD IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT MADE BY ASSESSEE QUO ANY SERVICE OF PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL NATURE RENDERE D TO THE PAYEE. ALL THE ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 4 ABOVE ENTRIES BY A VALID COLLABORATION FORMED A BUS INESS MODULE ON THE REVENUE SHARING BASIS FOR IMPARTING COMPUTER EDUC ATION TO RAJASTHAN GOVT. EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS. THE SERVICES IF ANY WE RE PROVIDED TO THE STUDENTS AND THE PAYEE IN QUESTION. THE NATURE OF INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE BASED ON THE MUTUAL AGREEMENTS CAN T BE HELD TO BE RENDERING OF PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES BY ANY STRET CH OF IMAGINATION. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ERUDITE CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. OUR VIEW IS REINFORCED BY HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CAREER LAUNCHERS, THE ACT OF SHARING OF REVENUE I N A MULTI ENTITY BUSINESS MODEL CANNOT BE HELD AS CONTRACT PAYMENT S AND TAKING THE LOGIC FURTHER THEY CANNOT BE HELD AS PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF RENDERING OF ANY PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS CONTEM PLATED BY SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. IN VIEW THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHICH ARE UPHELD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH & DELHI HIGH COURT, I FIND THAT SINCE THE FACT OF THE PRESE NT CASE ARE SAME, ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS U/S 194J FOR BOTH THE YEARS. ACCORDINGLY THE DEMAND RAISED FOR SHORT DEDUCTION O F TDS U/S 194J FOR BOTH THE YEARS IS DELETED. THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 201(1A) IS CONSEQUENTIAL & WILL REDUCE ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE LD AR ARGUED THE MATTER AT LENGTH AND SUBMIT TED AS UNDER: I) THAT THE NORMS AND GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY THE U NIVERSITY FOR THE RESPECTIVE STUDY CENTRES CLEARLY PROVIDE THAT THE U NIVERSITY AND STUDY CENTRES ARE DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND THERE IS CLEAR SET OF RE SPONSIBILITIES ON BOTH THE PARTS. IN FACT, IT IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRINCIPAL TO PR INCIPAL WHERE IN BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE TO DISCHARGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AN D IN TURN WILL SHARE REVENUE IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT. BY WAY OF AG REEMENT, THE UNIVERSITY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTATIO N OF COURSE, COURSE MATERIALS AND CONDUCTING FINAL EXAMINATIONS AND THE STUDY CENTRES WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENROLLING STUDENTS, COLLECTING FEES , PROVIDING THE STUDENTS FACILITIES OF FACE TO FACE RESOLUTION OF ACADEMIC P ROBLEMS AND ALSO PROVIDING THEM FACILITIES OF LABORATORY, LIBRARY ETC. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 5 (II) THE SAID ARRANGEMENT ARE NEITHER ARRANGEMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY NOR ARRANGEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY. THE FEES COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS ARE CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN LIEU OF THE AU THORIZATION OUT OF THE COURSE FEES RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS, 50% IS RETAINED BY ASSESSEE AND 50% IS REMITTED TO THE STUDY CENTRES. IN FACT THE AGREEMEN T IS FOR SHARING OF REVENUE. (III) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE STUDY CENTRES ARE RU N, MANAGED AND OPERATED BY THE PERSON OWNING THE STUDY CENTRES AND THEY ARE NO T RUN, MANAGED AND OPERATED BY ASSESSEE OR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. (IV) ACCORDING TO THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF NORMS AND GUIDELINES OF AGREEMENTS, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS A CASE OF REVENUE SHARING WHEREBY BOTH THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT PERFORM THEIR DE FINED JOBS AND SHARE REVENUE ACCORDINGLY. THE APPELLANT IASE UNIVERSITY IS ENGAGED IN IMPARTING EDUCATION THROUGH ITS DESIGNATED STUDY CENTRES. UND ER THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT, THE STUDY CENTRES COLLECTS FEES FROM THE STUDENTS AND SEND THE FULL AMOUNT TO THE UNIVERSITY WHICH IN TURN AFTER K EEPING ITS 50% SHARE OF COURSE FEES SEND BACK THE REMAINING 50% TO THE STU DY CENTRES. THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE OF SINGLE POINT COLLECTION AND SHARING OF REVENUE HAS BEEN ADOPTED MAINLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF STUDENTS SO THAT THEY SHO ULD NOT BE CHARGED EXCESSIVELY BY THE STUDY CENTRES. IT ALSO HELPS IN MAINTAINING PROPER CONTROL/CHECK OVER THE COLLECTION OF FEES AND IT S SHARING. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE RECIPIENT OF THE FEE FROM THE STUDENTS ARE STUD Y CENTRES ONLY AND FOR INTERNAL CHECK AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE ONLY IT IS SENT TO THE IASE UNIVERSITY. IT NEED NOT BE EMPHASIZED THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECEIPT OF INCOME AND REMITTANCE THEREOF. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT IS JUST REMITTING THE SHARE OF STUDY CENTRES TO THEM THEREF ORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION ARISE AT ALL FOR PROVIDING ANY SERVICES BY THE STUD Y CENTRES. THIS IS PURELY A REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO NEED TO DEDUCT TDS AT ALL. (V) IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SERVICE BEING PROVIDED BY THE STUDY CENTRE TO THE UNIVERSITY. ON THE CONTRARY, SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY STUDY CENTRE TO STUDENTS, AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM CLAUSE 44, WHERE IN IT HAS BEEN STATED AS UNDER : ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 6 A SUM OF 50% OF THE COURSE FEE WILL BE PAID TO THE CENTRE SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTORY SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CENTR E TO THE STUDENT IN TERMS OF LIBRARY, LABS, PRACTICAL AND THEORY CLASSES, TRAINI NG ETC. (VI) THE APPELLANT SEEKS TO REFER TO SECTION 194J O F THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDE AS UNDER : FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES ANY PERSON, NOT BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDI VIDED FAMILY, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM BY WAY OF- (A) FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OR (B) FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, (BA) ANY REMUNERATION OR FEES OR COMMISSION BY WHAT EVER NAME CALLED OTHER THAN THOSE ON WHICH TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 192 TO A DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY, OR (1) (C) ROYALTY, OR (2) (D) ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (VA) OF SECTION 2 8, SHALL AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH SUM TO THE ACCO UNT OF THE PAYEE OR AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT THEREOF IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CH EQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER, DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TEN PERCENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX ON INCOME COMPRISED THEREIN. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SECTION WOULD SHOW THAT THE SAID SECTION COMES INTO OPERATION INTER-ALIA WHEN ANY PERSON IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM BY WAY OF FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES . THE EXPRESSION FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES HAS BEEN DEFINED IN EXPLANATION 2 TO CLAUSE (VII) OF SECTION 9(1) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: EXPLANATION: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE, FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION ( INCLUDING ANY LUMP SUM CO NSIDERATION) FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTAN CY SERVICES ( INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF SERVICES OF TECHNICAL OR OTHER PERSONN EL) BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSIDERATION FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, ASSEMBLY, MININ G OR LIKE PROJECT UNDERTAKEN BY THE RECIPIENT OR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD BE INCOME OF THE RECIPIENT CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD SALARIES. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 7 IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT FEES FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES MEANS ANY CONSIDERATION FOR RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTAN CY SERVICES. IT IS SUBMITTED AND AS CONTENDED ABOVE THAT SINCE NO SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE STUDY CENTRES TO RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, SECTION 194J OF THE ACT HAS NO APPLICATION ON THE FACTS OF THE RESPONDENT SOCIETY. (VII) THE APPELLANT ALSO DERIVES SUPPORTS FROM CIRC ULAR NO. 715 DATED 8 TH AUGUST,1995 WHEREIN CBDT HAS HELD THAT THE TRUE CON TENT OR INTENTION MUST BE GLEANED ON A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE ARRANGEMENT . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SUBMITTED THATDOMINANT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS TO SHARE REVENUE. (VIII) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ST UDY CENTRES HAS BEEN RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NO T BEEN CONFRONTED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO NO SHOW CAUSE HAS BEEN ISS UED IN THIS REGARDS HENCE AS SUCH, IT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AS HELD IN KISHN ICHAND CHELLARAM VS. CIT (125 ITR 713).THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITS MERE FACT THAT ANOTHER UNIVERSITY IS DEDUCTING RATE @ 10% CANNOT BE BASIS TO ALLEGE TDS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED @ 10% WHEN THE SAME IS NEITHER FACTUALLY NOR LEGALLY WARRANTED ON THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS REITERATED HERE THOUGH AT THE RISK OF REPETITION THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST STATUTE. (IX) APART FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE RE IS NOTHING INCRIMINATING IN THE STATEMENT OF STUDY CENTRES SO AS TO ALLEGE T HAT STUDY CENTRE IS PROVIDING EITHER TECHNICAL OR MANAGERIAL SERVICES TO THE APPE LLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED ON THE CONTRARY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED H IS QUESTIONS SO AS TO ASSUME THAT SERVICES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE STUD Y CENTRE TO THE APPELLANT. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM QUESTION NO. 5 AND QUESTION NO . 10 OF THE AFORESAID STATEMENT. INFACT DESPITE THE ABOVE, HE HAS CLARIFI ED THAT STUDY CENTRE ONLY PROVIDE COUNSELLING TO STUDENTS AND RESOLVES THE IS SUES FACED BY THE STUDENTS ENROLLED WITH THE APPELLANT UNIVERSITY, THUS MAKING THE APPELLANT S GROUND MORE STRONG THAT THE STUDY CENTRES ARE NOT PROVIDIN G SERVICES TO THE UNIVERSITY BUT TO THE STUDENTS AND THUS THERE IS NO RELATION E XISTS OF SERVICE RECEIVER AND SERVICE PROVIDER AND ACCORDINGLY SECTION 194J CANNO T BE INVOKED. THUS, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH A STATEMENT I N ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL CANNOT BE A GROUND TO INVOKE THE PROVISION S CONTAINED IN SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 8 (X) IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NO BASIS HAS BEEN STATED B Y THE LEARNED. A.O. FOR ASSUMING THAT STUDY CENTRES AUTHORIZED BY THE APPEL LANT WERE PROVIDING TECHNICAL, MANAGERIAL AND CONSULTANCY SERVICES. 4. THE LD AR FURTHER RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS AND SUBMITTED THAT: 4.1 THE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT UNIVERS ITY AND THE STUDY CENTRES IS OF SHARING OF PROFITS AND NOT PROVISION OF SERVICE. AS SUCH THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY DECISION IN CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD. V S. ACIT REPORTED IN 139 TTJ 48 (DEL) UPHELD BY HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 358 ITR 179 (DELHI). THE NARROW CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL RELATED TO LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS U/S.194J OF THE ACT ON PAYMENTS MADE TO STUDY CENTRES. IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF HON BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 139 TTJ 48(DEL), THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NIIT LTD. REPORTED IN 318 ITR 289, HELD AS UNDER: WE MAY NOW EXAMINE THE SALIENT FEATURES OF THE AGRE EMENT WITH A VIEW TO DECIDE IT S NATURE AND INTENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TERMED A S LICENSOR AND THE OPERATOR OF THE STUDY CENTRE HAS BEEN TERME D AS LICENSEE . ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED EMPHASIS ON THESE TERMS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT MATERIAL FOR DECIDING THE ISS UE AT HAND. WHAT IS MATERIAL IS THE CONTENT OF THE AGREEMENT. ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVIDE ENTIRE STUDY MATERIALS, UPGR ADATION THEREOF, TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW AND PRODUCT DETAILS. THE LICENSEE IS ENTIT LED TO USE TRADE MARK AND TRADE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LICENSEE IS TO SET UP THE PREMISES, EQUIPMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AT ITS COST AS PER SP ECIFICATIONS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE WHOLE OF THE MATERIALS, TRADE NAM E ETC CAN BE USED BY THE LICENSEE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RUNNING THE STUDY CENTRE. THE LICENSEE IS TO COLLECT VARIOUS FEES FROM THE STUDENTS. THE TAXES O R DUTIES LEVIABLE IN PRESENT OR IN FUTURE ARE TO BE BORNE BY THE LICENSEE. HE IS ALSO LIABLE TO PAY FEES @ 25% OF THE NET VALUE EARNED FROM THE OPERATIONS. TH IS MEANS THAT 75% OF THE PROFIT FROM THE OPERATION OF THE CENTRE IS TO B E RETAINED BY THE LICENSEE AND 25% IS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE. WHEN WE LOOK TO THESE TERMS, ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 9 IT EMERGES THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE LICENSEE IS DOING ANY WORK. IT IS A CASE OF RUNNING A STUDY CENTRE AND TO APPORTION PRO FITS THEREOF BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND LICENSEE. ALTHOUGH THE MODEL OF SHARING RECEIPTS IN THE CASE OF NIIT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AS IN THAT CASE, IN THIS CASE ALSO THE AGREEMENT HAS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE. IF WE DO THAT, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE PRESENT AGREEMENT IS NOT AN AGREEMENT REGARDING PAY MENT TO BE MADE TO THE LICENSEE FOR ANY WORK DONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. RATHER IT IS A CASE OF SHARING FEES FOR CARRYING OUT RESPECTIVE OBLIGATION S UNDER THE CONTRACT [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED]. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT IT IS A CASE OF SHARING OF PROFITS BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND AUTHORIZE STUDY CENTERS FOR CARRYING OUT RESPECTIVE OBLIGATIONS UNDER AN ARRANGEMENT AND NOT A CASE OF RENDERING OF SERVICES BY STUDY CENTRES TO APPELLANT AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DED UCT TDS UNDER SECTION 194C OR UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT. 4.2 THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF NIIT LTD. (SUPRA) DECI DED BY HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSIN ESS OF PROVIDING COMPUTER EDUCATION AND TRAINING. IT PROVIDES COMPUTER EDUCAT ION AND TRAINING THROUGH ITS OWN CENTRES AND THROUGH FRANCHISEES, WHO ARE PR OVIDING NIIT COURSES UNDER A LICENSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE AGREEMENT, T HEY BRING TOGETHER THEIR RESOURCES FOR PROVIDING THE EDUCATION. THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES RELEVANT COURSE- WARE AND ITS EXPERTISE. THE FRANCHISEES PROVIDE INF RASTRUCTURE, LIKE CLASS ROOMS FACILITIES, EQUIPMENTS, FURNITURE, FIXTURES, ADMINI STRATION SET UP ETC. THEY ALSO OPERATE AND MANAGE THE EDUCATION CENTRE ON A DAY-TO -DAY BASIS. THEY ADMIT STUDENTS, CONDUCT CLASSES AND PERFORM OTHER ADMINIS TRATIVE FUNCTION IN THIS BEHALF. THE EDUCATION CENTRE IS RUN UNDER THE BRAND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FEES FROM THE STUDENTS ARE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER SHARED WITH THE FRANCHISEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERM AND CONDITION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. THE FEES SHARED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FRANCHISEE HAS BEEN PLACED UNDER DIFFERENT NOMENCLA TURES, I.E., MARKETING CLAIM, INFRASTRUCTURE CLAIM ETC. THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AGREEMENT HAS TO BE READ AS WHOLE AND COMPOSITE AGR EEMENT LIKE THIS CANNOT BE BROKEN INTO VARIOUS COMPONENTS AS CONTENDED BY T HE REVENUE. THEREFORE, ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 10 THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 194-I REGARDING TAX DEDUCTION FROM RENT OF A BUILDING IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE INFRAS TRUCTURE CLAIM. ALTHOUGH THE MODEL OF SHARING RECEIPT IN CASE OF NIIT IS SOMEWHA T DIFFERENT FROM THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT AS IN THAT CASE, IN THIS CAS E ALSO AGREEMENT HAS TO BE READ AS A WHOLE. IF WE DO THAT, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT TH E PRESENT AGREEMENT REGARDING PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO THE LICENSEE FOR A NY WORK DONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. RATHER IT IS A CASE OF SHARING OF FEE S FOR CARRYING OUT RESPECTIVE OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT. [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] 4.3 THE AFORESAID DECISION HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CAREER LAUN CHERS INDIA LTD. REPORTED 358 ITR 179 4.4 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT NO TECHNICAL KNOWLED GE HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE SECTION 19 4J OF THE ACT PERSE IS INAPPLICABLE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 123 TTJ888 W HEREIN IT WAS INTER-ALIA HELD AS UNDER AN ANALYSIS OF ABOVE CASES LAYS DOWN THE PROPOSITIO N THAT S. 194J WOULD HAVE APPLICATION ONLY WHEN THE TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL K NOWLEDGE OF A PERSON IS MADE AVAILABLE TO OTHERS AND NOT WHERE BY USING TEC HNICAL SYSTEMS, SERVICES ARE RENDERED TO OTHERS. RENDERING OF SERVICES BY AL LOWING USE OF TECHNICAL SYSTEM IS DIFFERENT THAN CHARGING FEES FOR RENDERIN G TECHNICAL SERVICES. THE APPLICABILITY OF S. 194J WOULD COME INTO EFFECT ONL Y WHEN BY MAKING PAYMENT OF FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES . 4.5 PAYMENT MADE TO STOCK EXCHANGE FOR PROVIDING IN FRASTRUCTURE TO THEIR MEMBERS IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF TECHNICAL SERVICES TO ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J (DY.CIT VS. ANGEL BROKING LTD. (2010) 35 SOT 457 (MUM.). 4.6 WHERE A HOSPITAL ENGAGED CONSULTING DOCTORS AND PROVIDED THEM WITH CONSULTING CHAMBERS WITH SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE AND THE FEES COLLECTED FROM OUT-PATIENTS AND PAID TO THE CONSULTANTS EACH DAY A FTER DEDUCTING CERTAIN AMOUNT TOWARDS RENT AND SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL FEE AND NEITHER SECTION 192 NOR SEC TION 194J WAS ATTRACTED AND ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 11 THE HOSPITAL CANNOT BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAU LT FOR NOT DEDUCTING TAX FROM SUCH PAYMENTS [ASSTT. CIT VS. INDRAPRASTHA MED ICAL CORP. LTD. (2010) 35 DTR 353 (DEL.) 4.7 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PAYMENTS MADE ARE NOT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES IS EVIDENT FROM THE MANNER AND MODE OF PAYMENTS. IT IS A CASE OF SHARING OF PROFITS WHEREBY 50% OR 60%, AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF THE COURSE FEE IS PAID TO THE STUDY CENTRES. THERE IS NO FIXED SUM PAYABLE OR PAID TO THE STUDY CENTRES FOR EITHER MAINTAINING THE INFRASTRUCTURE OR OPERAT ING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE STUDY CENTRES ARE ENTITLED TO CON SIDERATION ONLY ON RECEIPT OF FEE FROM THE STUDY CENTRES. THUS THE FACT THAT THE STUDY CENTRES ARE ENTITLED TO VARIABLE AND FLUCTUATION CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE FEES RECEIVED ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF PROVISION OF SER VICES BY STUDY CENTRES TO THE APPELLANT. 4.8 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITED THAT IN ALL THE STUDY C ENTRES, IT IS THE STUDY CENTRES WHO APPROACHED THE UNIVERSITY AND NOT VICE- VERSA. THUS IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT EVEN BE VALIDLY ALLEGED TH AT THE SERVICE IS BEING PROVIDED BY STUDY CENTRES TO THE APPELLANT, AS IT I S COMMONLY AND WELL KNOWN FACT IN ORDINARY PARLANCE THAT SERVICE RECIPIENT AP PROACHES THE SERVICE PROVIDER WHICH IS NOT SO IN THE INSTANT CASE. THUS, EVEN ON THIS GROUND, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIGH LY UNJUSTIFIED AND UNSUSTAINABLE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SERVICE HA S BEEN DEFINED AS A VALUABLE ACTION, DEED OR EFFORT PERFORMED TO SATISFY A NEED OR TO FULFILL A DEMAND. SERVICE ALSO MEANS DELIVERING VALUE TO CUSTOMERS BY FACILITATING OUTCO MES CUSTOMERS WANT TO ACHIEVE BUT WITHOUT THE OWNERSHIP SPECIFIC COSTS AND RISKS WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE COST AND RISKS OR O UTCOMES ARE WITH THE STUDY CENTRES. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. VISISTH CHAY VYAPAR LTD. REPORTED IN 339 ITR 157 (DEL). 4.9 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN A RECENT JUDGM ENT REPORTED IN (2014) 369 ITR 392 (RAJ), THE HON BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT-JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) VS. SAMTEL GLAS S LTD. HAS STATED THAT IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO STRETCH THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE R EADING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES . WHILE DEALING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J , THE HON BLE HIGH ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 12 COURT OBSERVED THAT SECTION 194J READ WITH EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 9(1 )(VII) PROVIDES THAT THE PREDOMINANT PURPOSE TO FALL IN TE CHNICAL SERVICES SHOULD BE CONSIDERATION FOR THE RENDERING OF ANY MANAGERIAL, TECHNICAL OR CONSULTANCY SERVICES WHEREAS IN THE ASSESSEE S CASE IT WAS AN AGREEMENT IN BETWEEN THE TWO COMPANIES TO SELL/PURCHASE GAS AND THE INTENTIO N OF THE PARTIES WAS SALE AND PURCHASE AND IT COULD NOT IMPORT ANY REASONING TO HOLD THAT IT COULD FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH TO STRETCH THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE READING OF TECHNICAL SERVICES. 4.10 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO RUN AND CONDUCT BUSINESS WAS TO SHARE PROFITS AND TO ARRIVE AT THE SAID CONCLUSION DOMINANT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. IN CASE OF KAMAT HOTELS (I) LTD. VS. ITO78 ITD 241 (MUM), IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN OUR VIEW, THE DOMINANT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENTS UNDER CO NSIDERATION WAS TO GRANT A CONDUCTING LICENSE TO THE ASSESSEE TO MANAGE AND CO NDUCT THE CATERING BUSINESS AND IT WAS ONLY INCIDENTAL THAT THE PREMIS ES WAS ALLOWED TO BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A PERMISSIVE USER OR UNDER A LIC ENSE. WHEN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AGREEMENTS OR THE ARRANGEMENTS IS THIS, THE MERE POSSIBILITY OF A PART OF THE PAYMENT OF ROYALTY/COMMISSION BEING ATTRIBUTABL E TO THE USE OF THE LAND OR THE BUILDING TOGETHER WITH FURNITURE AND FITTING S DOES NOT, IN OUR OPINION, HAVE THE EFFECT OF CONVERTING WHAT IN SUBSTANCE AND TRUTH IS AN ARRANGEMENT FOR CONDUCTING OR MANAGING THE BUSINESS INTO ONE FO R THE MERE USE OF THE LAND OR BUILDING TOGETHER WITH FURNITURE, FITTINGS. 4.11 APART FROM THE ABOVE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KOTAK SECURITIES LTD REPORTED IN340 ITR 333 (BOM) AND DECISION IN THE CASE OF TUV BAYREN (INDIA ) LTD. VS DCIT REPORTED IN 53 SOT 56 (MUM) WHICH JUDGMENTS ALSO SUPPORT THE SU BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IN ABSENCE OF SERVICES SECTION 194J OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED. 4.12 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HON BLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION LTD VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 13.09.2015 HELD AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 13 THE NATURE OF INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUE BASE D ON THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE RENDERING OF PROFESS IONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION. WE FIND MER IT IN THE ERUDITE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. OU R VIEW IS REINFORCED BY HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CAREE R LAUNCHERS, THE ACT OF SHARING OF REVENUE IN A MULTI ENTITY BUSINESS MO DEL CANNOT BE HELD AS CONTRACT PAYMENTS AND TAKING THE LOGIC FURTHER THES E CANNOT BE HELD AS PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF RENDERING OF ANY PROFESSIONA L OR TECHNICAL SERVICES AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 194J OF THE ACT IN VIEW THEREOF WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), WHICH ARE UPHELD. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE REVENUE S APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 4.13 THE APPELLANT HASTENS TO ADD HERE THAT NO DOUB T ASSESSEE HAD DEDUCTED TDS U/S.194C OF THE ACT BUT AS EXPLAINED AND HELD B Y THE HON BLE COURT ABOVE IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE EVEN SECTION 194C OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPLE AGAINST STATU TE AND THUS ERRONEOUS DEDUCTION OF TDS BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.194C OF THE AC T CANNOT BE A GROUND TO ASSUME THAT ANY SERVICE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE ST UDY CENTRES TO THE APPELLANT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON KESORAM INDUSTRIE S & COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT59 ITR 767 (SC) AND MAYANK PODDAR VS CIT262 ITR 633 (CAL.) 4.14 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT S HAVE BEEN MADE CONSISTENTLY SINCE MORE THAN TEN YEARS AND NO ORDER HAS BEEN MADE U/S.201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH ON THIS G ROUND ALONG THE ORDER IS VITIATED. RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF C ONSISTENCY IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: I) CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD.358 ITR 295 (SC) II) STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. A.P. JAISWAL (2001) 1 S CC 748 III) CIT VS. BERGER PAINTS 266 ITR 99 (SC) 4.15 IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT AL SO DERIVES SUPPORTS FROM CIRCULAR NO.715 DATED 8TH AUGUST, 1995 WHEREIN CBDT HAS HELD THAT THE TRUE CONTENT OR INTENTION MUST BE GLEANED ON A PROPER CO NSTRUCTION OF THE ARRANGEMENT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSION THAT DOMINANT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS TO AUTHORIZE THE STUDY CENTRES TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE STUDENTS AND SHARE PROFIT T HERE FROM. THERE WAS NO ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 14 INTENTION TO AVAIL SERVICES FROM STUDY CENTRES. THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS IN THE NORMS AND REGULATIONS ONLY PROVIDE FOR RESTRICTION AND CONTROL FOR THE AUTHORIZATION. IT IS THUS SUBMITTED THAT APPLYING T HE DOMINANT TEST IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE STU DY CENTRES TO THE APPELLANT. 4.16 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPRECI ATE THAT SINCE ALL THE STUDY CENTRES WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAD DULY DECLARED SUCH RECEIPTS AS THEIR INCOME THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION EVEN OTHERWISE TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCULAR NO.275/201/95 IT (B) DATED 29.01.1997 OF THE CENTRA L BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND JUDGEMENT OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGE (P) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 293 ITR 226 5. IN ORDER TO APPRECIATE THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND MORE PARTICULARLY, THE TRUE NATURE AND DOMINANT OBJECT OF THE ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE RESPECTIVE STUDY CENTRES, IT WOULD BE RELEV ANT TO GO THROUGH THE NORMS AND PROCEDURES/ GUIDELINES FOR SETTING UP THE STUDY CENTRES AND CONDUCTING IASE UNIVERSITY PROGRAMMES THROUGH SUCH STUDY CENT ERS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. AFTER THE APPLICATION IS RECEIVED FOR GRANT OF AUTH ORIZATION TO THEIR STUDY CENTRE BY THE UNIVERSITY, THE UNIVERSITY SHALL SATI SFY THEMSELVES OF THE BONAFIDE OF ITS APPLICANT SOCIETY/TRUST/CORPORATE AND ITS OF FICE-BEARERS, AND MAKE SURE THAT NO CRIMINAL PROCEEDING(S) IS/ARE PENDING OR CO NTEMPLATED AGAINST ANY OF ITS OFFICE BEARERS. 2. THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILI TIES SUCH AS PROPER BUILDING CLASS ROOMS, LIBRARY, LABORATORY, AND ALSO QUALIFIED TEACHING FACULTY, A KNOW-TO-ALL CONCERNED E-MAIL ID OF THE CENTRE, INTE RNET CONNECTION, TELEPHONE, FAX, TEACHING AUDIO-VISUAL AIDS, STUDENT SUPPORT CE LL INCLUDING PLACEMENT CELL ETC. WITH REGARDS TO THE COURSE(S) APPLIED FOR, AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY. SUCH APPLICATION SHOULD ALSO BE ACCOMPA NIED BY PHOTOGRAPHS AND CD(S) SHOWING IN DETAILS OF ALL INFRASTRUCTURES LIK E CLASS ROOMS, LIBRARY, LABORATORIES ETC. ON INSPECTION BY THE TEAM APPOINT ED FOR THE PURPOSE BY THE UNIVERSITY, IF ANY DISCREPANCY(IES) IS/ARE NOTICED, IT WILL BE CONSTRUED AS A MISREPRESENTATION OF ACTUAL FACTS RESULTING IN REJE CTION OF APPLICATION SUMMARILY AND FORFEITURE OF INSPECTION-CUM-PROCESSI NG FEE. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 15 3. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS ALLOWED FOR ENROLMEN T SHALL DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF BUILDING, INFRA-STRUCTURAL AND INSTI TUTIONAL FACILITIES OF THE STUDY CENTRE. IF THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES IS MORE THAN TH E INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE, THEN THE STUDY CENTRE MUST CREATE OR ARRANGE, ADDIT IONAL INFRASTRUCTURE, LAB, WORKSHOPS LIBRARY AND OTHER FACILITIES MANDATORY FO R THE COURSE AS PER THE RATIO OF THE STUDENTS TO THE ENTIRE SATISFACTION OF THE U NIVERSITY. THE EXCESS CANDIDATES WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE NEAREST AUTHO RIZED STUDY CENTRE OF IASE. 4. HOWEVER, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF APPLICAT ION FORM ALONG WITH THE REQUISITE FEES IS NOT AN ACCEPTANCE, AS SU CH, OR GRANT OF AUTHORIZATION AS THAT IS BASED STRICTLY ON THE OUTCOME OF THE CON CERNED STUDY CENTRE S INSPECTION. REQUIREMENT: 5. THE STUDY CENTRE OF UNIVERSITY IS REQUIRED TO FUNCT ION UNDER A TRUST/SOCIETY/CORPORATE. 6. THE STUDY CENTRE MUST POSE AN AESTHETIC LOOK, BOTH FROM INSIDE AND OUTSIDE, WORTHY OF A QUALITY EDUCATIONAL SET UP. THE ENTRY P OINT OF THE STUDY CENTRE MUST DISPLAY THE SIGNBOARD CLEARLY INDICATING THAT THE CENTRE IS AN APPROVED CENTRE OF IASE UNIVERSITY. 7. A MINIMUM OF 1,800-2,000 SQ.FT. COVERED AREA OR MOR E DEPENDING UPON THE PROGRAMME(S) BEING CONDUCTED AND SUFFICIENT OPEN SP ACE (OWNED OR RENTED) IS ESSENTIAL FOR A STUDY CENTRE. 8. NOT LESS THAN THREE CLASS ROOMS, ACCOMMODATING 25 C ANDIDATES EACH, PROVIDING AN AREA OF 9 SQ.FT. PER STUDENT. INFRASTRUCTURE: 9. A WELL LAID OUT LIBRARY, SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST 15% OF THE ENROLLED CANDIDATES AT A TIME. THE LIBRARY SHOULD H AVE ADEQUATE NUMBER OF BOOKS INCLUDING REFERENCE BOOKS OF ALL STREAMS/COUR SES BEING CONDUCTED AT THE CENTRE, A MINIMUM OF 300 REFERENCE BOOKS PER PR OGRAMME AND MORE THAN 2500 PER STREAM FOR A CENTRE HAVING MINIMUM 10 0 STUDENTS. 10. THE STUDY CENTRE SHOULD PROVIDE ALL ESSENTIAL INFRA STRUCTURES LIKE RECEPTION DESK, CLASS ROOMS, LABS, WORKSHOPS, COMPUTER-ROOM W ITH A MINIMUM CONFIGURATION OF PENTIUM-IV COMPUTERS WITH UPS, LIC ENSED SOFTWARES, TEACHING-AIDS, FURNITURES AND OTHER EQUIPMENTS AS P ER THE NEED OF THE COURSE(S). (PHOTOGRAPHS AND CDS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH SELF ASSESSMENT FORM SEPARATELY FOR EACH PROGRAMME). 11. THE STUDY CENTRE MUST BE ESTABLISHED ONLY IN AREAS SUITABLE FOR RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND NOT IN DHARAMSHALAS OR AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 16 DIRECTOR OR OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE CENTRE. THE DECI SION OF THE UNIVERSITY IN THIS REGARD SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING. 12. PROPERLY ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, STUDENT SUPPORT SYSTEM INCLUDING AUDIO VISUAL TRAINING AIDS AND PUBLIC UTILITIES/SER VICES/CONVENIENCE. A) ADEQUATE BASIC FACILITIES LIKE GENERATOR/COMPUTERS, DRINKING WATER, FANS, LIGHTS, PARKING PLACE, TOILETS, SECURITY ETC. B) CONTACT CLASSES, THEORY AS WELL AS PRACTICALS, AS P ER SYLLABUS. C) CLASS-WISE AND TEACHER-WISE TIME TABLE D) PLACEMENT SUPPORT TO THE STUDENTS E) A KNOWN TO ALL: CENTRE S E-MAIL ID AND THE CONTACT PERSON, INTERNET CONNECTION, TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS F) ANY OTHER SUCH FACILITY THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR PR OVIDING SATISFACTORY QUALITY EDUCATION AND/OR MADE MANDATORY UNDER UGC/D EC RULES AND GUIDELINES. ADMINISTRATIVE SET-UP: 13. THE STUDY CENTRE SHOULD HAVE INCHARGE/ CO-ORDINATOR / CONTROLLER AND AT LEAST TWO FULL TIME SENIOR PERMANENT FACULTY MEMBER S FOR EACH PROGRAMME, HAVING REQUISITE QUALIFICATIONS. OTHERS MAY BE QUAL IFIED VISITING OR PART-TIME FACULTY OR SUBJECT SPECIALIST AS PER THE PROGRAMMES CONDUCTED AT THE CENTRE. 14. THE STUDY CENTRE MUST HAVE 3 OR MORE NON-TEACHING S TAFF ON PERMANENT BASIS. THE CENTRE MUST ALSO APPOINT LAB ASSISTANTS AND SUPPORT STAFF OR JUNIOR FACULTY MEMBERS FOR EACH PROGRAMME. 15. COMPLETE SERVICE RECORD OF THE FACULTY AND OTHER RE LEVANT INFORMATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THE CENTRE AND FACULTY SHOUL D BE AVAILABLE FOR INTERACTION, TO THE VISITING/INSPECTING TEAM WHEN C ALLED UPON AT A SHORT NOTICE. 16. SIMILARLY, A LIST OF AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES OF THE STUDY CENTRE, DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE STUDY CENTRE, MUS T BE MADE AVAILABLE IN WRITING TO THE UNIVERSITY FOR ALL ACADEMIC, LEGAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER SUCH PURPOSES, CORRESPONDENCE ETC. AND SHOULD BE AV AILABLE FOR INTERACTION, TO THE VISITING/INSPECTING TEAM WHEN CALLED UPON AT A SHORT NOTICE. RECORDS: 17. THE STUDY CENTRE SHOULD NECESSARILY MAINTAIN THE FO LLOWING RECORDS IN ITS PREMISES AND PRODUCE THE SAME ON DEMAND TO THE UNIV ERSITY WHENEVER REQUIRED: A) ATTENDANCE RECORD OF STUDENTS AT VARIOUS LEVELS B) SESSIONAL AND PRACTICAL WORKS; ASSESSMENT REPORT OF EACH STUDENT C) VISITORS BOOK ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 17 D) RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM AND TO THE STUDEN TS AND / OR THE UNIVERSITY E) COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE STUDY MATERIAL RECEIVED FRO M THE UNIVERSITY AND/OR ITS REPRESENTATIVES AND DETAILS OF STUDY MAT ERIAL ISSUED TO THE STUDENTS SUBJECT WISE AND STUDENT WISE. THEY ARE AL SO REQUIRED TO KEEP A SET OF MASTER COPY OF THE LATEST STUDY MATERIAL AND SYLLABUS. F) DETAILS OF THE DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE UNIVERSI TY AND/OR ITS NODAL CENTRES AND THEIR ISSUE TO THE STUDENTS CONCERNED ( MARK SHEETS/CERTIFICATES/NOC/DEGREE/EXAM SCHEDULES/TRAIN ING/PRACTICAL SCHEDULES/ ADMIT CARDS/HALL TICKETS/ENROLMENT NOS./ ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS MEANT FOR DISTRIBUTION). G) OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS RECEIVED, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER , FROM UNIVERSITY AND/OR STATUTORY BODIES SUCH AS UGC/DEC/EDUCATION B OARDS/STATE GOVT. ETC. H) RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE AND APPLICATIONS (ALONG WIT H THE REPLIES GIVEN TO THEM) FROM STUDENTS/THEIR PARENTS/BODIES/GROUPS. I) SELF ASSESSMENT FORMS (WITH UPDATED ASSETS LIST) AN D YEARLY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (Q UARTERLY UPDATED). J) COMPLETE DETAILS OF ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CON DUCT OF CONTACT CLASSES, PRACTICAL CLASSES, GUEST LECTURES ETC. ATT ENDANCE REGISTER OF STUDENTS WHO ARE BEING PROVIDED CONTACT CLASSES (TH EORY & PRACTICAL) SHOULD ALSO BE SEPARATELY MAINTAINED. K) AUTHENTICATED AND AUTHORIZED LETTERS OF TIE UPS, IF ANY, WITH THE COLLEGES/ LABS/ FACULTY ETC FOR RELEVANT ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES L) PLACEMENT DATABASE WHICH SHALL NECESSARILY INCLUDE: I) THE RECORDS OF PERSONS/INSTITUTES/FACTORIES/ORG ANIZATIONS AND/OR ANY OTHER SUCH EMPLOYMENT PROVIDERS CONTACTED II) SUCCESSFUL EMPLOYMENTS III) SUCCESSFUL PLACEMENT FOR TRAININGS M) ANY OTHER RELEVANT RECORD ASKED BY THE UNIVERSITY 18. THAT ON RECEIPT OF APPLICATION, TOGETHER, WITH THE REQUISITE INSPECTION-CUM- PROCESSING FEE, SHALL BE INSPECTED BY A TEAM APPOIN TED BY THE UNIVERSITY. ON RECEIPT OF THE REPORT OF INSPECTION TEAM, DEFICI ENCY (IES), IF ANY, INDICATED IN THE REPORT SHALL BE COMMUNICATED TO TH E APPLICANT. IF THE PROPOSED CENTRE REMOVES THE DEFICIENCY(IES) WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND SUBMITS EVIDENCE DULY SUPPLEMENTED BY MORE PHOTOGRA PHS AND CD, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE UNIVERSITY, AND ACCOMPANIED BY A FURTHER INSPECTION FEE OF RS.10000/- OR THE AMOUNT AS MAY BE AMENDED AND D EEMED APPLICABLE AT THAT TIME, THE UNIVERSITY MAY CONSIDER RE-INSPECTIO N OF THE SAID CENTRE. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 18 19. THAT AFTER RECEIVING THE RE-INSPECTION FEE AS MENTI ONED ABOVE, THE CENTRE SHALL BE INSPECTED AGAIN BY A TEAM OF PERSONS, AND IF THE DEFICIENCIES INDICATED IN THE PREVIOUS INSPECTION REPORT ARE FOU ND TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED THE PROPOSAL FOR AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WILL BE CO NSIDERED AND MAY BE ISSUED FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING ONE YEAR. 20. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CLAUSE INDICATED HEREINBEFORE T HE EVENT OF REJECTION/ WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE APPLICANT AFT ER ISSUANCE OF AUTHORIZATION, IT WILL HAVE NO CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE DEPOSITS MADE TO THE UNIVERSITY. IF THE DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT REMOVED IN PART OR IN FULL THEREOF, THE APPLICATION SHALL BE REJECTED FINALLY AND NO FEE SH ALL BE REFUNDED. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL ENSURE THAT UNTIL AND UNLESS A CENTRE I S FINALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE UNIVERSITY, THE CENTRE DOES NOT ADMIT/ENROLL ANY ST UDENT FOR ANY COURSE(S) APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE CENTRE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ADMIT STUDENTS WITHOUT HAVING PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL/AUTH ORIZATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY. 21. THE STUDY CENTRE, ONCE AUTHORIZED BY THE UNIVERSITY , DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SUBLET, UNDERLET THE PROGRAMMES OF IASE UN DER ANY TERMS AND CONDITIONS OR PART THEREOF TO ANY OTHER STUDY CENTR E UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. 22. AS PER THE IASE UNIVERSITY S RULES, THE CENTRE CAN NEITHER BE TRANSFERRED NOR SOLD/LEASED/SUBLET FROM ONE BODY TO THE OTHER. 23. THAT, IF ANY STUDY CENTRE ADMITS STUDENTS IN THE NA ME OF IASE UNIVERSITY IN ANY COURSE(S) NOT DULY AUTHORIZED/APPROVED BY THE U NIVERSITY, IT WILL BE TREATED AS MALPRACTICE AND BREACH OF TRUST, ON THE PART OF STUDY CENTRE OF UNIVERSITY, RESULTING IN CANCELLATION OF AUTHORIZAT ION AND REJECTION OF ALL SUCH FORMS OF THE STUDENTS. HOWEVER, AN OPPORTUNITY WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CENTRE FOR EXPLAINING THE SITUATION, IN WRITING. AUTHORIZATION/ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION: 24. THERE SHOULD BE NO OTHER AUTHORIZED CENTRE OF IASE WITHIN A RADIUS OF 3 KM IN CITIES AND 5 KM IN TOWNS. REGISTRATION/AUTHORIZATION FEE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE STUDY CENTRE FOR ONE STREAM IS RS.70,000/- OR AS APPLICABLE FROM TIME TO TIME, (REFUNDABLE IN CASE THE CENTRE IS NOT APPROVED AFTER INSPECTION). PROCESSING CUM INSPECTION FEE IS RS.15000/- OR AS A PPLICABLE FROM TIME TO TIME (NON-REFUNDABLE AND NON-ADJUSTABLE) SHOULD BE ENCLOSED WITH THE SELF ASSESSMENT FORM. THEREFORE A DD OF RS.85000/- SHOUL D BE ENCLOSED WITH THE SELF ASSESSMENT FORM IF APPLYING AFRESH FOR AUT HORIZATION OF ONE STREAM. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 19 IN CASE ADDITIONAL STREAM IS REQUIRED A SEPARATE DD OF RS.20,000/- FOR EACH ADDITIONAL STREAM MUST BE ENCLOSED APART FROM RS.85 ,000/- FOR AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL STREAM. HOWEVER AT LATE R STAGE THE SAME PROCESS OF AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL STREAM WILL BE REPEA TED FOR OBTAINING A DD WORTH OF RS.20,000/- + 10,000/- AS INSPECTION FEE. ONLY AFTER THE AUTHORIZATION/ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION THE CENTRE S HALL BE PERMITTED TO RUN/CONDUCT THE APPROVED PROGRAMMES. NO CENTRE IS P ERMITTED TO ADMIT STUDENTS WITHOUT OBTAINING PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE UN IVERSITY. THE STUDY CENTRE SHALL ENROLL STUDENTS ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM THE UNIVERSITY AND THAT TOO, ONLY FOR THE STREAM(S) ALLOWED THEREIN. THE CENTRE SHALL BE INSPECTED BY A TEAM (APPOINTED BY THE UNIVERSITY). 25. THAT, ON SUBMISSION OF INSPECTION REPORT BY THE INS PECTION TEAM DULY APPOINTED BY THE UNIVERSITY, AND ON ITS SATISFACTIO N, MAY PROCEED FOR ISSUANCE OF AN AUTHORIZATION/ APPROVAL LETTER FOR O NE OR MORE STREAM/STREAMS. THE MINIMUM DURATION OF THE AUTHORI ZATION WOULD BE FOR 1 YEAR WHICH MAY BE EXTENDED FURTHER UPTO 3 YEARS SUB JECT TO THE SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE STUDY CENTRE AND COMPLIANCE OF T HE UNIVERSITY S STUDY CENTRE NORMS AND PARAMETERS BASED ON THE EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT/INSPECTION REPORTS RECEIVED B Y THE UNIVERSITY. THIS GRANT OF EXTENSION SHALL BE AT THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE UNIVERSITY. 26. THE STUDY CENTRE MUST WORK WITH UTMOST SINCERITY, H ONESTY AND INTEGRITY AND WILL ENDEAVOUR TO ENSURE DELIVERY OF QUALITATIV E EDUCATION WITH THE HELP OF SUITABLE INFRASTRUCTURE AND LATEST TECHNOLOGY. 27. INFORMATION UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE SHALL BE DEEMED INFORMED AND APPLICABLE TO ALL CONCERNED. THE STUDY CENTRES MUST FOLLOW THE NORMS, PROCEDURES AND PARAMETERS OF THE UNIVERSITY AT ALL TIMES WHICH MAY BE AMENDED BY THE UNIVERSITY, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE. 28. THE STUDY CENTER SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR AUTHORIZAT ION PROVIDED THEY FULFILL ALL THE NORMS AND PROCEDURES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND SHALL ALSO ENSURE MINIMUM STUDENT STRENGTH OF 50 STUDENTS/STREAM/CENT ER/SEMESTER. 29. THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE STREAM IN WHICH THE INTAK E HAS BEEN LESS THAN 50 FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE SEMESTERS SHALL BE AUTOMATICALL Y WITHDRAWN. THE CENTRE SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO TAKE ANY NEW ADMIS SIONS IN ANY OF THE STREAMS, THEREAFTER, UNLESS PERMITTED BY THE UNIVER SITY. 30. NO ADMISSIONS OF THE STUDY CENTRE SHALL BE ENTERTAI NED FROM THE DATE OF A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE CENTRE ON ACCOUNT O F BREACH OF ANY OF THE NORMS AND PARAMETERS OF THE UNIVERSITY. IN CASE OF AN EXPLANATION TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS TURNED DOWN AS UNSATISFACTORY BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES ALL YOUR EXISTING STUDENTS SHALL BE TRA NSFERRED TO THE NEAREST AUTHORIZED CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSITY. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 20 31. ANY CENTRE CAN BE INSPECTED/VISITED AT ANYTIME, FOR A ROUTINE OR SURPRISE INSPECTION, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE, BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY/STATUTORY BODY/TEAM OF IASE, UGC, DEC OR BY ANY OTHER AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIVERSITY IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE PROPER FUNCTI ONING OF THE STUDY CENTRE AND/OR TO ASCERTAIN COMPLIANCE OF ALL THE UNIVERSIT Y S STUDY CENTRE NORMS AND PARAMETERS FAILING WHICH THE AUTHORIZATION TO B E GRANTED OR ALREADY GRANTED WOULD BE REVOKED. ADVERTISEMENT: 39. THAT ALL ADVERTISEMENTS RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION BY THE STUDY CENTRE SHOULD INVARIABLY BE GOT APPROVED IN WRITING FROM THE UNIV ERSITY SPECIFYING THE PURPOSE. THIS SHALL BE BASED ON THE PUBLICITY/COMMU NICATION GUIDELINES OF THE UNIVERSITY. APPROVAL SOUGHT SHALL NOT BE UNREAS ONABLY WITHHELD. WHERE AN ADVERTISEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSIT Y AND THE STUDY CENTRE WISHES TO USE THE SAME ADVERTISEMENT, PROVID ED IT IS EXACTLY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS APPROVED EARLIER, THE STUDY CENTRE NEED NOT TAKE THE APPROVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY IN SUCH CASES. THIS ORIGINAL ADVERTISEMENT APPROVED SHALL BE TAKEN AS A MASTER A PPROVAL. PROSPECTUS: 40. THE APPLICATION FORM(S) TOWARDS FRESH ADMISSION, RE -REGISTRATIONS, PROVISIONAL AND DUE FORMS SHALL BE PRINTED BY THE U NIVERSITY. STUDY MATERIAL: 41. THE STUDY MATERIAL SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY THER UNIVER SITY/NODAL CENTRE/ STUDY CENTRE TO THE STUDENT WITHIN 7 DAYS OF HIS/HER SUCC ESSFUL ENROLMENT IN THE UNIVERSITY. COURSE FEE ETC. 42. THAT THE COURSE FEE, EXAMINATION FEE, ENROLLMENT & VERIFICATION FEE AND ANY OTHER FEE FOR THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS SHALL BE FIXED B Y THE UNIVERSITY WHICH COULD BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SHALL BE BIN DING AND DEEMED APPLICABLE ON ALL THE STUDY CENTRES OF UNIVERSITY. THE STUDY CENTRE SHALL ENSURE THAT THE RELEVANT COURSE FEE AND ALL OTHER A PPLICABLE FEE, IS DEPOSITED IN FULL WITH THE UNIVERSITY. 43. THE UNIVERSITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVISE ALL O R ANY OF THE FEES FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH SHALL INVARIABLY APPLY TO ALL STUDENT S FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR/SESSION, IRRESPECTIVE OF STUDENTS PAYING A LOWER RATE OF FEE ON ACCOUNT OF HAVING BEEN ENROLLED IN PREVIOUS YEAR(S) AND CONTINUING THEIR COURSE OF STUDIES. ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 21 44. A SUM OF 50% OF THE COURSE FEE WILL BE PAID TO THE CENTRE SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTORY SUPPORT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CENTR E TO THE STUDENT IN TERMS OF LIBRARY, LABS, PRACTICAL AND THEORY CLASSES, TRA INING ETC. 45. UPON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY, TH E STUDY CENTRE MUST FORWARD ALL INFORMATION TO THE STUDENTS WITHIN 7 DA YS OF ITS DATE OF DISPATCH FROM THE UNIVERSITY WHICH COULD BE REGARDING DATES OF EXAMINATION/RESULTS/NAMES OF THE EXAMINATION CENTRE S, HALL TICKETS, ELIGIBILITY, ADMISSIONS, ENROLMENT, STUDY MATERIAL, DISCREPANCIES IN THE APPLICATION FORMS, CLOSURE OF THE CENTRE, TRANSFER OF STUDENTS, REFUNDS (IF ANY) ETC.. THE STUDY CENTRE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE TO DISTRIBUTE THE MARK CARDS, ADMIT CARDS, ENROLMENT CERTIFICATES OF THE STUDENTS SENT BY THE UNIVERSITY WITHIN 4 DAYS OF THE DATE OF DISPATCH FROM THE UNIV ERSITY AND MAINTAINING THE DELIVERY RECORDS AND RECEIPTS. HOLDING BACK ANY DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION OF THE UNIVERSITY, MEANT TO BE PASSED ON/TO THE STU DENTS AND CHARGING ANY EXTRA FEES ON THESE PRETEXTS WILL LEAD TO STRICT AC TION BY THE UNIVERSITY TOWARDS THE STUDY CENTRE. THE UNIVERSITY WILL BE PR IMARILY RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THIS. 46. THAT THE UNIVERSITY SHALL ISSUE NECESSARY MARKS SHE ET AND FINAL DEGREE/DIPLOMA/CERTIFICATES TO THOSE STUDENTS ONLY WHO: A) COMPLETE THEIR COURSES SUCCESSFULLY AS PER THE NORM S OF THE UNIVERSITY, B) FULFILL ALL THE NORMS AND PROCEDURES OF THE UNIVERS ITY, AND; C) HAVE NO DUES PENDING AGAINST THEIR NAME. THE STUDY CENTRE SHALL MAINTAIN ITS COMPLETE RECORD AND PRODUCE TO THE UNI VERSITY PARTY ON DEMAND FOR VERIFICATION AND OTHER RELEVANT PURPOSES . 47. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL DEPOSIT THE REQUISITE FEE/CHA RGES ETC. IN ADVANCE WITHOUT WHICH THE APPLICATION FORMS OF THE STUDENTS , IF ALREADY SUBMITTED, WILL BE REJECTED SUMMARILY, TREATING THE SAME AS HA VING RECEIVED WITHOUT FEE OR IN-SUFFICIENT FEE. ADVICE & GUIDANCE BY UNIVERSITY: 48. THE UNIVERSITY SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY ADMINISTRATI VE AND/OR TECHNICAL ADVICE AND GUIDANCE AND ALWAYS ENCOURAGE ITS STUDY CENTRES TO IMPART QUALITY EDUCATION AND KEEP IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUC TURAL FACILITIES ALL THE TIME. THE UNIVERSITY SHALL MAINTAIN A TRACK RECORD OF THIS THROUGH INSPECTIONS AND SELF ASSESSMENT FORMS TO BE PROVIDE D BY THE STUDY CENTRE AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL OF AUTHORIZATIONS. 49. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR FOL LOWING STRICTLY THE COURSE CURRICULUM OF IASE AND SHALL PROVIDE THE STUDENTS T HE REQUIRED NUMBER OF HOURS OF CONTACT PROGRAM, CONDUCT THEORY CLASSES, P RACTICALS AND COUNSELING IN EACH SEMESTER/YEAR. IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ALL TH E FACILITIES SUCH AS QUALIFIED ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 22 FACULTIES, LIBRARY, LABORATORY AND OTHER INFRASTRUC TURE, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COURSE(S) BEING RUN, BESIDES PROVIDING BASIC AM ENITIES TO THE STUDENTS. MISCELLANEOUS: 50. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AL L THE FINANCIAL LIABILITIES SUCH AS SALARIES OF ITS EMPLOYEES, COST OF ADDITION AL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS MAINTENANCE, AND REPAYMENT OF LOANS ETC. IASE WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FINANCIAL LIABILITY OF THE CENTRE WHETHER PREVI OUS, PRESENT, OR FUTURE. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL NOT MAKE ANY FINANCIAL COMMITMENT S ON BEHALF OF IASE UNIVERSITY. 51. STUDY CENTRE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SALE OF PROSPE CTUS, COLLECTION OF ADMISSION/RE-REGISTRATION FORMS, ALONG WITH INDIVID UAL DEMAND DRAFTS OF THE 100% FEES, OTHER APPLICABLE FEES AND COSTS AS SPECI FIED IN THE LATEST PROSPECTUS (NO CASH WILL BE ACCEPTED). THE STUDY CE NTRE WILL DEPOSIT THE SAME WITH THE UNIVERSITY WITHIN THE STIPULATED DATE S SPECIFIED BY THE UNIVERSITY ALONG WITH ALL FORMS AND ELIGIBILITY/ RE LEVANT DOCUMENTS. ALL PAYMENTS, INCLUDING THE COST OF THE PROSPECTUS ETC. , WILL HAVE TO BE DEPOSITED WITH THE UNIVERSITY IN ADVANCE. 52. ALL ADMISSION FORMS/RE-REGISTRATION FORMS/DUE PAPER FORMS MUST BE FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY AFTER BEING DULY SIGNED BY THE CENTRE COORDINATOR WITH ITS OFFICE STAMP. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL VERIFY ALL THE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATES OF THE STUDENTS WITH THE O RIGINALS AND SUBMIT THE SELF ATTESTED AND DULY NOTARIZED PHOTOCOPIES OF EACH CER TIFICATE/DOCUMENT ALONG WITH THE FORMS. THE UNIVERSITY HAS THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY ADMISSION FORM IN CASE OF NON-ELIGIBILITY/INCOMPLETE FORM IN ANY RESPECT, OR WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS THEREOF. HOWEVER, THE ACKNOWL EDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FORM, ALONG WITH THE REQUISITE FEE, IS NOT AN ACCEPTANCE, AS SUCH, OR GRANT OF ADMISSION, BECAUSE THAT IS BASED STRICT LY ON THE OUTCOME OF THE VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS AND FULFILLING THE ELIGIB ILITY CONDITIONS. 53. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO ABIDE BY AL L STATE GOVERNMENT/CENTRAL GOVERNMENT/OTHER STATUTORY BODIE S RULES AND GUIDELINES, AS APPLICABLE FROM TIME TO TIME. IF THE RE IS ANY FAILURE, STUDY CENTRE WILL BE SOLELY AND TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR I TS CONSEQUENCES THEREOF. 54. IN CASE THE STUDY CENTRE IS FOUND INDULGED INTO DEF AMING/MISREPRESENTING THE UNIVERSITY/MISINTERPRETING THE FACTS/ACTIVITIES COMPETITIVE IN NATURE/ILLEGAL/ OR IN ANY OTHER SUCH ACTIVITIES THA T SHALL ADVERSELY AFFECT/BE DETRIMENTAL OR HARMFUL TO THE GOODWILL/ STATUS OF T HE UNIVERSITY, LATENT OR OVERT, THE UNIVERSITY STUDY CENTRE SHALL TAKE NECES SARY STRINGENT/LEGAL ACTION(S)AS DEEMED FIT INCLUDING THE TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. OR AS DEEMED FIT, THE UNIVERSITY MAY SEEK FROM THE STUDY ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 23 CENTRE; VIDE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, TO EXPLAIN ITS PO SITION WITHIN 15 DAYS OF DATE OF DISPATCH OF SUCH NOTICE. THE WRITTEN EXPLAN ATION/STATEMENT BY THE CO-ORDINATOR/DIRECTOR OF THE STUDY CENTRE, IN REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE, MUST REACH THE UNIVERSITY WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME, FA ILING WHICH THE CENTRE IS DEEMED TO HAVE ACCEPTED INVOLVED IN WORKING AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY AND IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE FOR THE CANCELLATION OF ITS AUTHO RIZATION AND COMPENSATE THE UNIVERSITY FOR ALL THE LOSSES, LATENT OR OVERT, AS CLAIMED BY THE UNIVERSITY. THE STUDY CENTRE SHALL INDEMNIFY THE UN IVERSITY FROM ANY OF THE CONSEQUENCES ARISING THEREOF. 55. THE STUDY CENTRE MUST ENSURE FULL SUPPORT, GUIDANCE , COUNSELING ETC IN CONDUCTING THE CONTACT CLASSES. IN CASE CANDIDATES ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SERVICES AND SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE STUDY CENTRE, THEY CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER CENTRE, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUBSEQ UENT SEMESTER/YEAR AND A TRANSFER FEE OF RS.500/- PER CANDIDATE SHALL HAVE TO BE PAID BY THE TRANSFEREE CENTRE TO THE UNIVERSITY. 56. IN CASE OF A COMPLAINT MADE BY THE CANDIDATES/PAREN TS/OTHER BODIES, THE UNIVERSITY MAY SEEK CLARIFICATION FROM THE CENTRE. IF NOT SATISFIED, UNIVERSITY WILL CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION AT THE COST OF THE C ENTRE AND TAKE SUITABLE ACTION, IF FOUND TRUE, AGAINST THE STUDY CENTRE. 57. ALL PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE ONLY IN THE FORM OF DEMAN D DRAFT FAVORING IN THE NAME OF REGISTRAR IASE UNIVERSITY, A/C CENTRE CODE .., PAYABLE AT SARDARSHAHAR/DELHI. ANY INSTRUMENT PAYABLE AT OTHER THAN THESE CITIES WILL BE CHARGED RS.1000/- PER INSTRUMENT AND DEBITED TO THE UNIVERSITY S ACCOUNT. IASE UNIVERSITY WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FO R ANY CASH TRANSACTION WHETHER BY THE STUDENT OR BY THE CENTRE MADE TO THE UNIVERSITY IN ANY OTHER MANNER. 58. IN THE EVENT OF NON-FULFILLMENT OF THE CONTACT, TER MS AND CONDITIONS, DUE TO UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNIVERSITY SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS OR CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES. 59. THE UNIVERSITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SUIT FOR DAMAGES OR FOR ANY INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT OF THE SIM OR ANY OTHER B REACH OF THE IPR MADE BY THE STUDY CENTRE. THE STUDY CENTRE SHALL UNDERWR ITE THAT THE UNIVERSITY SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS SUFFERED OUT OF THIS. 60. ALL CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD BE MARKED CLEARLY TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY ONLY. THE UNIVERSITY DOES NOT TAKE RESPO NSIBILITY FOR ANY POSTAL DELAYS OR LOSS OR DOCUMENTS IN TRANSIT AND THE CONS EQUENCES THEREOF. 61. THE CENTRE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUCTING REGULAR CL ASSES AND CONTINUOUS EVALUATIONS WHICH IS DONE THROUGH ASSIGNMENT, PRACT ICAL AND VIVA. THE EVALUATION SHEET SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSI TY IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT IN HARD AND /OR SOFT COPIES, RETAINING A SET OF THE WHOLE RECORD WITH ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 24 ITSELF. IN CASE THE CLASSES, THEORY OR PRACTICALS, ARE OUTSOURCED (TIE-UP) THE EVALUATION ASSESSMENT SHALL BE FORWARDED BY THEM TO THE STUDY CENTRE WHO IN TURN WILL FORWARD IT TO THE UNIVERSITY. 62. COPIES OF THE TEST PAPERS, ASSIGNMENTS, PROJECTS AN D OTHER ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE STUDENTS SCORING MORE THAN 70% IN INTERNAL ASSESSMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE UNIVERSITY. 6. WE ALSO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RA JASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJASTHAN KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION L TD DATED 8.01.2016 REPORTED IN 385 ITR 427 AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOLLOWED BY THE LD CIT(A). IN THAT CASE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS A PRIVATE LIM ITED COMPANY PROMOTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN, MAHARASHTRA KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION LIMITED (MKCL), PUNE, RAJASTHAN UNIVERSITY, JAIPUR, MAHARAN A PRATAP UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, UDAIPUR, VARDHMAN MAHAV EER OPEN UNIVERSITY, KOTA, RAJCOMP, JAIPUR AND CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE, JAIPUR MAINLY IMPARTING COMPUTER EDUCATION TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND STUD ENTS AND OTHER PERSONS IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS BUSIN ESS FRANCHISEE NETWORK, I.E., DISTRICT LEAD CENTRES (DLCS), AND I.T. GYAN KENDRA (ITGK) THROUGH ITS PROGRAMME SUPPORT AGENCY (PSA) AND WAS RUNNING TECHNICAL COUR SES NAMELY; RS-CIT, A BASIC COMPUTER LITERACY COURSE ALONG WITH OTHER COU RSES LIKE RS-CFA, RS-CEL, RS-CRM AND RS-CBFSI. THESE AGENCIES/CENTRES HAVE BE EN ENTRUSTED WITH IMPARTING COMPUTER TRAINING AND THESE AGENCIES AND CENTRES ARE BEING PAID FOR THEIR SERVICES/JOBS BY THE RESPONDENT-COMPANY. ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE IT GYAN KENDRAS COLLECTS RS.2,300/- PE R STUDENT FOR THE COURSE AND SENDS THE FULL AMOUNT TO THE RESPONDENT-RKCL WHICH IN TURN AFTER KEEPING RS.850/- WITH ITSELF, SENDS BACK RS.1,450/- TO I.T. GYAN KENDRAS AS THEIR SHARE. OUT OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.850/-, THE RESPONDENT M/S. RKCL PAYS RS.100/- PER STUDENT TO PROGRAMME SUPPORT AGENCIES AND RS.75/- P ER STUDENT TO DISTRICT ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 25 LEAD CENTRES (DLCS) ON WHICH THE COMPANY IS DEDUCTI NG TAX AT SOURCE. ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS, IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE RESPONDENT-RKCL IS NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,450/- PAID TO IT GYAN KENDRAS BY IT FOR EACH S TUDENT AND NOTICING CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES IN NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND THE RESPONDENT-RKCL WAS DIRECTED TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION AS TO WHY THE TAX WAS NOT BEING DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE SAID AMOUNT. IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE FACTS, THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HA S GIVEN ITS FINDINGS AND HELD AS UNDER: (6) WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE RESPONDEN T WAS PROMOTED BY THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN TO IMPART COMPUTER EDUCATION PRO GRAM FOR THE BENEFIT OF STUDENTS AND THEIR OWN STAFF. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED EARLIER THE AMOUNT TO BE SHARED BY THE THREE ENTITIES. IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO MENTION THAT IN SO FAR AS PAYMENT OF RS.850/- IS CONCERNED, TAX WAS BEING DED UCTED AT SOURCE AND THE ONLY DISPUTE RAISED BY THE REVENUE WAS ON ACCOUNT O F RS.1,450/- WHICH WAS BEING PAID TO ITGKS BY THE RESPONDENT. ADMITTEDLY, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHARED BY THE RESPONDENT AMONGST VARIOUS AGENCIES R EFERRED TO HEREIN ABOVE. BOTH THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION THE AGREEMENT ENTERED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES/STAKEHOLDERS AND THE DOMINANT INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS TO CONDUCT THE BUSINESS OF PROVI DING SPECIFIC E-LEARNING COURSES IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND SHARE THE REV ENUE GENERATED BY WAY OF FEES RECEIVED FROM THE LEARNERS. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE REVENUE SHARING MODEL, THE ENTRY FEES (COURSE FEE/EXAM FEE), COLLECTED FROM TH E LEARNERS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENT, WHICH IN TURN REDISTRIB UTED IT TO BE SHARED WITH THE ITGKS AND VMOU AS PER THE AGREEMENT. FOR INSTANCE, THE AGGREGATE REVENUE OF ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 26 RS.2,300/- FOR RS-CIT COURSE, WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE ITGK FROM THE LEARNER, IS TRANSFERRED TO THE RESPONDENT WHICH IS SHARED AMONG THE THREE STAKEHOLDERS. IN OUR VIEW, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ITGK AND RKCL AND VMOU ARE NOT OF A SERVICE PROVIDER OR SERVICE RECEIVER. THE RELATION BETWEEN THESE STAKEHOLDERS IS ONE OF COLLABORATORS AS PER THE AGREEMENT MADE AND THE REVENUE SHARED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PAYMENTS FOR TECHNICAL SERVICE S RENDERED BY ITGKS AND VMOU TO RKCL AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON REVIEW OF THE NORMS/GUIDELINES FOR SETTING UP OF THE STUDY CENTRE AS WELL AS FOR CONDUCTING IASE UNIVERSITY PROGRAMMES T HROUGH SUCH STUDY CENTRES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE STUDY CENTRES WILL BE RESPON SIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE COURSE CURRICULUM OF IASE AND SHALL PROVIDE THE STUDENTS THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF HOURS OF CONTACT PROGRAMME, CONDUCT THEORY CLASSES, PRACTICALS AND COUNSELLING SESSIONS IN EACH SEMESTER/YEAR. THE STU DY CENTRES SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ALL THE FACILITIES SUCH AS QUALIFIED FACUL TIES, LIBRARY, LABORATORY AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COURSES BEING RUN BY THE CENTRE BESIDES PROVIDING BASIC AMENITIES TO THE STU DENTS. THE STUDY CENTRE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE FINANCIAL LIABILITIES S UCH AS SALARIES OF EMPLOYEES, COST OF ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND ITS MAINTENANCE AN D REPAYMENT OF LOAN ETC. THE IASE UNIVERSITY ON ITS PART SHALL PROVIDE NECES SARY ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL ADVICE AND GUIDANCE TO THE STUDY CENTRES TO IMPART QUALITY EDUCATION AND MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES. FOR THESE PURPOSES, THE UNIVERSITY SHALL KEEP AND MAINTAIN TRACK RECORDS TH ROUGH INSPECTIONS AND SELF ASSESSMENTS DONE BY THE STUDY CENTRES FROM TIME TO TIME. THE PROSPECTUS AND STUDY MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PROGRAMMES/COU RSES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND THE UNIVERSITY SHALL BE CONDUCTI NG THE EXAMINATION AND WILL BE ISSUING THE NECESSARY MARK-SHEET AND FINAL DEGR EE/DIPLOMA CERTIFICATES TO THE QUALIFYING STUDENTS. THE COURSE FEES, EXAMINAT ION FEES, ENROLMENT AND ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 27 VERIFICATION FEES, ETC FOR THE VARIOUS STUDY PROGRA MME SHALL BE FIXED BY THE UNIVERSITY AND SHALL BE BINDING ON ALL THE STUDY CE NTRES. THE STUDY CENTRES WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING ALL THE FEES FROM THE STUDENTS AND DEPOSITING THE SAME IN FULL WITH THE UNIVERSITY. OUT OF THE FEES SO COLLECTED, A SUM OF 50% OF THE COURSE FEES WILL BE PAID BY THE UNIVERSITY TO T HE STUDY CENTRES SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTORY SUPPORTS SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CENTRES TO THE STUDENTS IN TERMS OF LIBRARY, LABS, PRACTICAL AND THEORY CLASSE S, AND TRAINING ETC. ON REVIEW OF THE ABOVE ARRANGEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE IASE UNIVERSITY AND THE VARIOUS STUDY CENTRES, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DOMINAN T INTENTION OF SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY EDUCATION THROUG H DISTANCE LEARNING OF VARIOUS IASE STRUCTURED STUDY PROGRAMMES AND TO SH ARE THE REVENUES GENERATED BY WAY OF COURSE FEES AND OTHER RELATED FEES COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS. THE ARRANGEMENTS DEFINES THE MUTUAL RIGH TS, DUTIES AND OBLIGATION OF THE IASE UNIVERSITY AND THE RESPECTIVE STUDY CEN TRES AND ON A PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH ARRANGEMENTS, IT IS CLEAR THA T TRUE INTENTION OR THE DOMINANT INTENTION IS TO PROVIDE QUALITY EDUCATION TO THE STUDENTS AND THE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN THE IASE UNIVERSITY AND THE ST UDY CENTRES ARE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS WHEREIN SHARING OF PROFIT IN TERMS OF COURSE FEES AND OTHER FEES COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS HAS BEEN EMPHASISED AND MUTUALLY AGREED UPON. IT IS NOT AN ARRANGEMENT FOR RENDERING OF ANY SERVICES BY THE STUDY CENTRE TO THE UNIVERSITY RATHER THE SE RVICES, IF AT ALL, HAS BEEN RENDERED IS TO THE STUDENTS WHO HAVE ENROLLED FOR T HE VARIOUS COURSES. 8. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECIS ION PASSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION (SUPRA). THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE PARI MATERIA TO THE INST ANT CASE AND HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAS SINCE AFFIRMED THE DECISIO N OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF NIIT LTD. AND ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 28 CAREER LAUNCHER LTD. HOLDING THAT THE FACTS, AS N OTICED EARLIER IN THE INSTANT CASE, ARE ALSO IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J WHEREAS IN T HE CASES BEFORE THE DELHI HIGH COURT, ONE RELATED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 194-I ( CIT V. NIIT LTD. ) AND IN ANOTHER CASE ( CIT V. CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD. ) IT WAS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C BUT BY AND LARGE IN ALL THE THREE CASES INCLUD ING THE INSTANT MATTER, THE DOMINANT PURPOSE IS TO SHARE THE FEE BASED ON THE A GREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, THE CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE AND THAT OF CAREER LAUNCH ER ARE DIFFERENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 9. FURTHER IT IS NOTED THAT FOR THE PAST MORE THAN 10 YEARS, THE COURSE AND OTHER FEES HAVE BEEN SHARED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH IT S STUDY CENTRES AND REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE PRINCIPAL OF CO NSISTENCY DEMANDS THAT A SETTLED POSITION WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE R EVENUE FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED WITHOUT ANALYSING THE TRUE INTENT OF THE ARRANGEMENTS ENTER INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND ES PECIALLY GIVEN THAT THERE IS NO FACTUAL OR LEGAL CHANGES WHICH HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN OUR NOTICE. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT ALL THE STUDY CENTRES ARE DULY ASSESS ED TO TAX AND HAS DULY DECLARED SUCH RECEIPTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE INCOME T AX RETURN HENCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO HOLD THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE IT ACT FOLLOWING HONBLE SUPREME COURTS DEC ISION IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA BREWERIES (SUPRA). 10. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND KEEPING INTO THE ACCOUNT THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF RAJASTH AN KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS. 1016 & 1017/JP/15 ACIT, (TDS), JAIPUR VS. GANDHI VIDYA MANDIR, CHURU 29 THE STUDY CENTRES ARE IN THE NATURE OF REVENUE SHA RING BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD IN THE NATURE OF PROVIS IONS OF TECHNICAL SERVICES BY THE STUDY CENTRES TO THE UNIVERSITY HENCE THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE FOR BOT H THE YEARS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/0 1/2017. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 31/01/2017 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT(TDS), JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S GANDHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT III, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.1016 & 1017 /JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.