JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. It has been said that education is the key that unlocks the golden door to freedom.¹[An aphorism common to all faiths. Proverb 4:13 states, “Take hold of instruction, do not let go. Guard her, for she is your life.” The Pavamana Mantras (purifying mantras) appealing to be taken from darkness to light in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, as part of verse 1.3.28 too emphasizes the value of knowledge and education, “Lead me from the darkness of ignorance to the light (of knowledge).” Surah Al-Baqarah, gives an important interpretation about learning, “He gives knowledge and wisdom to whomever He wills and to whomsoever knowledge is given, much good has been given.”] In Avinash Mehrotra v. Union of India , (2009) 6 SCC 398, this court underlined the object and value of education in the following words:

“29. Education today remains liberation - a tool for the betterment of our civil institutions, the protection of our civil liberties, and the path to an informed and questioning citizenry. Then as now, we recognize education's "transcendental importance" in the lives of individuals and in the very survival of our Constitution and Republic.”

2. The subject matter of these appeals³[M/s St. Augustine Educational Society v The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.A. No.3793/2014; M/s St. Patrick Educational Society v The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.A. No. 3794/2014; M/s New Noble Educational Society v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , C.A. No. 3795/ 2014; M/s R.R.M Educational Society Hyderabad v The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.A. No. 6418/2012 and M/s Sri Koundinya Educational Society v The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, C.A. No. 9108/2012] is the rejection of the appellants’ claim for registration as a fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution (hereinafter collectively referred to as “institution / trust”) set up for the charitable purpose of education, under the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter, “IT Act”). The Andhra Pradesh High Court, by its detailed impugned judgment⁴[M/s New Noble Educational Society v. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , (2011) 334 ITR 303. This batch of writ petitions was decided on 11.11.2010], held that the appellant trusts which claimed benefit of exemption under Section 10 (23C) of the IT Act were not created ‘solely’ for the purpose of education, and that to determine that issue, the court had to consider the memorandum of association or the rules or the constitution of the concerned trust. Additionally, the appellants were denied registration on the ground that they were not registered under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter, “A.P. Charities Act”) as condition precedent for grant of approval.

3. The parties had urged that such a precondition was absent in the provisos to Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the IT Act, and that since the tax statute was a complete code in itself, other acts such as A.P. Charities Act could not form the basis for denying approval. Rejecting the same, the High Court interpreted Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the IT Act in light of the previous decisions of this court, and held as follows:

“7. An educational society, running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit, must be regarded as “other educational institution” under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. It would be unreal and hyper-technical to hold that the assessee-society is only a f