A.J. Desai, J.

1. Rule. Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the parties, the petition has been taken up for final hearing today itself.

2. By way of the present writ petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th September 2014 passed by the Respondent-Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad-IV by which the application submitted by the petitioner to issue exemption certificate in its favour under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', for short) has been refused. The respondent authority has filed its affidavit-in-reply opposing the grant of any relief as prayed for by the petitioner.

3. The brief facts emerging on the record are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as well as under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is the case of the petitioner that the institution is engaged in imparting higher and specialised education. It is specialised in imparting education in the field of communication including advertising and its related subjects. The petitioner has also been granted the registration under Section 12A of the Act.

The Director of Income-tax (Exemption) had issued a notice under Section 12AA (3) of the Act and called upon the petitioner to explain as to why its registration under Section 12A of the Act should not be withdrawn. The said notice came to be challenged by the petitioner in this court by filing a writ petition, which was withdrawn at a later stage in view of the fact that only show-cause notice was under challenge. However, the procedure initiated by the Director of Income-tax (Exemption) under Section 12AA (3) of the Act were dropped by an order dated 3rd March 2014 and accordingly the registration granted in favour of the petitioner under Section 12A of the Act remained intact.

4. The petitioner submitted an application for getting an exemption certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and onwards on 30th September 2013. The petitioner was called upon to make submissions. By two letters dated 28th February 2014 and 13th August 2014 detailed submissions were made before the respondent-commissioner with whom the application was pending for adjudication.

By the impugned order dated 29th September 2014, the respondent-commissioner refused to issue the certificate under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act on various grounds. Hence, this petition.

5. Mr. Bandish Soparkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the respondent Commissioner has grossly erred in rejecting the application on the ground that-

(i) The applicant does not have education as the sole purpose,

(ii) The applicant is engaged in conducting coaching/training courses for and on behalf of industry, trade and commercial organisations;

(iii) The applicant is engaged in various social activities of general public and public utility; and

(iv) the applicant is not conducting educational courses as charitable activity, but for the purpose of profit.

6. By taking the Court through the objects enumerated in the Memorandum of Association of the petitioner, Mr. Soparkar would submit that the petitioner is established solely with the purpose of providing training in communication including advertisement and related subjects for the persons from industry, institutions as well as individuals so as to equip them thoroughly to practice the art and profession of communication in which they have been trained. The object of the institution is also to prepare all talented, mature young persons for career leading to communication with responsibility for the public at large. By taking us through the objects of the petitioner institution he would submit that the institution has always fixed and demanded such fees and other charges which shall not