ORDER : Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this batch of appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the concept of exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act arises for consideration. Though the questions in different appeals have been couched in different language and project a similar issue, yet on consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant-revenue and the respondent-assessee, the question is reframed for the sake of clarity and uniformity. On such ref raming, the substantial question of law would read as under: Whether in the obtaining factual matrix the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in coming to hold that the respondent-assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 when the element of imparting education to the student is absent to attract the facet of exemption as engrafted under the aforesaid provisions and whether the Tribunal has appositely applied the ratio of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Oxford University v. CIT [2001] 3 SCC 359? 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of the controversy in these appeals are that the assessee-M.P. Text-Book Corporation ('the Corporation') was registered with the Registrar of Societies under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1959 on 7-8-1968. 2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of the controversy in these appeals are that the assessee-M.P. Text-Book Corporation ('the Corporation') was registered with the Registrar of Societies under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1959 on 7-8-1968. The main objects of the society as per the Memorandum of Association are as under: (1) to aid and promote advancement of education in general and of primary and secondary education in particular; (2) to produce School text-books, hand-books for teachers work books for pupils and other educational literature useful for furtherance of teaching, learning and evaluation in educational institutions; (3) to encourage and procure expert authors having knowledge and experience of modern methods of education to write in different language textbooks on various subjects suited to the requirements of the curricula and syllabi prescribed by Government or other appropriate authority in that behalf for various courses of education and so apply for and obtain the approval or sanction of Government of other appropriate authorities thereto; (4) to print, publish, stock, distribute and sell or enter into any arrangement for printing, publishing, stocking, distribution and sale of text-books approved, sanctioned or assigned by Government or other appropriate authority and any other publications which the Corporation may decide to publish with a view to making the same available at a fair reasonable price; (5) to undertake research for the improvement in curricula and syllabi, for primary and secondary education or any other branch of education; (6) to undertake research in text-book production, evaluation techniques, and ancillary aids and educational literature concerning the various methods of education and aids for Education and otherwise directed toward securing improvement in the general educational standard; (7) to regulate and fix prices of the publications of the Societies consistent with its objects; (8) to frame, develop and recommend to the Government and other appropriate authorities curricula and syllabi for the purpose of improvement in the general educational standard; (9) to advise Government and other appropriate authorities in all matters concerning syllabi, curricula, evaluation, examination, reform and production of text-books and ancillary aids and educational literature; (10) to assess utility of text-books, teachers hand-books and other educational aids and other educational literature whether produced by the Corporation or not; (11) to undertake printing, sale and distribution of books and literature useful or necessary for advancement of education in all its branches; (12) to establish and maintain libraries to facilitate research in general and in curricula, syllabi, evaluation and text-book production in particular; (13) to invest and deal with the funds of the Society; (14) to acquire by gift, purchase, exchange, lease, hire or otherwise howsoever any lands, building, easements rights in common and any property movable or immovable including a printing press or any estate or interest for the furtherance of all or any of the objects of the Society; (15) to construct, maintain, repair, extend, alter, improve or develop any buildings or works necessary or convenient for the purpose of the society; (16) to borrow and raise money on the security or a mortgage, charge, hypothecation or pledge over all or any of the immovable of movable properties belonging to the society or in any other manner whatsoever. 3. The assessee-Corporation filed its return for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1983-84 under Amnesty Scheme claiming exemption of its income under Section 10(22) of the Act including the assessment year 1980-81 in respect of which the notice under Section 148 was issued on 2-2-1985. The Assessing Officer by order dated 18-3-1988 allowed the exemption under Section 10(22) to the assessee-Corporation on the basis of assessment made for the assessment year 1984-85. In subsequent assessment years, the Assessing Officer allowed the exemption till 1994-95 and the assessment was done accordingly. When the matter stood thus, for the assessment year 1995-96, the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(3) of the Act and required the Corporation to explain why exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act should not be refused to them. A reply was filed by the assessee-Corporation stating, inter alia, that the Corporation is fully owned by the Government of Madhya Pradesh which published the text-books only for the students who are imparted education in all Sections of Madhya Pradesh. It was also claimed that the activities of the Corporation come within the ambit and sweep of Section 10(22) of the Act and they fulfil all the conditions to get the exemption from the levy of Income-tax. The Assessing Officer did not accept the stand put forth by the Association and came to hold that the Association is only engaged in printing of books and selling of the same and hence, it cannot be said that it is engaged in the activity of education. Being of this view, the Assessing Officer expressed the opinion that the assessee was not entitled for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act and the Assessing Officer directed initiation of penalty proceeding under the provisions of the statute. 4. Being of this view, the Assessing Officer expressed the opinion that the assessee was not entitled for exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act and the Assessing Officer directed initiation of penalty proceeding under the provisions of the statute. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, appeals were preferred before the CIT(A) who expressed the view that the Association is not engaged in the activity of imparting education to the students which is a primary and essential condition for getting exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act; the existence of teachers and the taught is missing; the balance sheet, income and expenditure account and other details filed with the return that show that the funds of the assessee-society are for providing hospitality to the senior officers and other VIPs; that the society is basically engaged in printing, sale of text-books and hence, it is actually engaged in business and, accordingly concurred with the view expressed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved by the orders, appeals were preferred before the Tribunal and the Tribunal relying on certain decisions expressed the view that the first and foremost aim of the Association as per the Memorandum of Association is to aid and promote advancement of education in general and of primary and secondary education in particular and in furtherance thereto, it publishes school text-books, hand-books for teachers, work books for pupils and other educational institutions. It has the sole aim to impart affordable quality education; that it is established by the State Government keeping in view the avowed purpose of spreading education; and that from the assessment years 1969-70 to 1994-95, the assessee had been enjoying the benefit of exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal opined that for granting exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act, it is necessary to consider whether the assessee plays a role in imparting education in the absence of which educational institution of the kind cannot be run or in other words as to whether by prescribing syllabus and supplying the study material based on it, extending financial aid, the assessee is making it possible to run those educational institutions which impart affordable education to the students. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the Association was entitled to claim exemption which the revenue in earlier years had been rightly granting under the similar set of facts and circumstances. The Tribunal thereafter further came to hold as under:— 12. ...There may be several private publication houses which may also be publishing study materials, etc., helpful in study to the students in the school but when it is done with an aim and object to earn profit, these cannot be termed as existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. Earning of a limited profit for smooth running of an institution or society is not prohibited, what is to be seen, is the approach of the society from its activities and conduct as to whether it is commercial or solely for educational purposes. The issue involved in ground Nos. 1 to 4 is thus decided in favour of the assessee with the direction to the Assessing Officer to allow the claim exemption to the assessee. 6. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the revenue in respect of various assessment years has preferred these appeals. 7. At the outset, it is necessitous to mention that in all the appeals, the interpretation of Section 10(22) of the Act, as it stood before its omission, is applicable. The said provision before omission stood as under: 10. Incomes not included in total income. - In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (1) to (21) ** ** ** (22) Any income of a University or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. 8. The aforesaid provision occurs in Chapter III which deals in income which do not form part of the total income. 9. To appreciate the basic elements and ingredients of the aforesaid provision, it is appropriate to refer to certain citations. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel, has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234(SC). In the said case, the Apex Court was considering the term "education" as has been used in the dictionary clause in Section 2(15) of the Act. Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel, has placed heavy reliance on the decision rendered in Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234(SC). In the said case, the Apex Court was considering the term "education" as has been used in the dictionary clause in Section 2(15) of the Act. Khanna, J while dealing with the said facet has stated thus: The sense in which the word 'education' has been used in Section 2(15) is the systematic instructions, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for the work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. The word 'education' has not been used in that wide and extended sense according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education. According to this wide and extended sense, travelling is education, because as a result of travelling you acquire fresh knowledge. Likewise, if you read newspapers and magazines, see pictures, visit art galleries, museums and zoos, you thereby add to your knowledge. Again, when you grow up and have dealings with other people some of whom are not straight, you learn by experience and thus add to your knowledge of the ways of the world. If you are not careful, your wallet is liable to be stolen or you are liable to be cheated by some unscrupulous person. The thief who removes your wallet and the swindler who cheats you teach you a lesson and in the process make you wiser though poorer. If you visit a night club you get acquainted with and add to your knowledge about some of the not much revealed realities and mysteries of life. All this in a way is education in the great school of life. But that is not the sense in which the word 'education' is used in Clause (15) of Section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. (p. 241) 10. All this in a way is education in the great school of life. But that is not the sense in which the word 'education' is used in Clause (15) of Section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by formal schooling. (p. 241) 10. In Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310 : 90 Taxman 528 (SC) the Apex Court while dealing with the scope of Section 10(22) of the Act expressed the view as follows: ...We are of the view that an educational society or a Trust or other similar body running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit could be regarded as 'other educational institution' coming within Section 10(22) of the Act. See CIT v. Boon Foundation [1985] 154 ITR 208 (Cal.) and Agarwal Shiksha Satniti Trust v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 751 (Raj.). It will be rather unreal and hyper-technical to hold that the assessee-society is only a financing body and will not come within the scope of 'other educational institution' as specified in Section 10(22) of the Act. The object of the society is to establish, run, manage or assist colleges or schools or other educational institutions solely for educational purposes and in that regard to raise or collect funds, donations, gifts, etc. Colleges and schools are the media through which the assessee imports education and effectuates its objects. In substance and reality, the sole purpose for which the assessee has come into existence is to impart education at the levels of colleges and schools and so, such an educational society should be regarded as an 'educational institution' coming within Section 10(22) of the Act.... (p. 317) After so stating, their Lordships proceeded to state as follows: ...After meeting the expenditure, if any surplus results incidentally from the activity lawfully carried on by the educational institution, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes since the object is not one to make profit. The decisive or acid test is whether on an overall view of the matter, the object is to make profit. In evaluating or appraising the above, one should also bear in mind the distinction/difference between the corpus, the objects and the powers of the concerned entity. The decisive or acid test is whether on an overall view of the matter, the object is to make profit. In evaluating or appraising the above, one should also bear in mind the distinction/difference between the corpus, the objects and the powers of the concerned entity. The following decisions are relevant in this context: Governing Body of Rangarava Medical College v. ITO [1979] 1l7 ITR 284 (AP) and Secondary Board of Education v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 408 (Orissa). We make this position clear in order to allay the apprehensions expressed by counsel. (p. 318) 11. In Oxford University Press v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 658 : 115 Taxman 69 (SC), D.P. Mohapatra, J. expressed the view as follows: 25. On a plain reading of the Section it is clear that the provision is intended to cover any income of a University or other educational institution, existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. The purpose for which and the object with which the institution is established and the source from which the income is earned are relevant considerations to determine whether the income earned by the assessee is exempted from tax under the provision. The Section does not provide that the University or other educational institution should be one established or incorporated by or under an enactment in this country. Therefore, even a University or other educational institution established or incorporated outside India can be eligible for the exemption from tax under the provision provided that it exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. On a closer examination of the provision it becomes clear that in using the expression 'existing solely for educational purposes and not for purpose of profit' the Legislature has made it clear that it intends to exempt the income of institutions established solely for the educational purposes and not for commercial activities. Such a provision is meant to encourage institutions (including University) engaged in educational activities and it is not intended to benefit institutions engaged in commercial activities with the intention of earning profit. In my view this interpretation will not only serve the intent and purpose of the statutory provision but will also help in avoiding the criticism of want of rationale in granting the exemption. In my view this interpretation will not only serve the intent and purpose of the statutory provision but will also help in avoiding the criticism of want of rationale in granting the exemption. (p. 669) Thereafter, his Lordship proceeded to state as follows: I am of the view that the expression 'existing solely for the educational purpose and not for the purpose of profit' qualifies a 'University or other educational institution'. In a case where a dispute is raised whether the claim of exemption from the tax by the assessee is admissible or not it is necessary for the assessee to establish that it is a part of a University which is engaged solely or at least primarily for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit and the income in respect of which the exemption is claimed is a part of the income of the University. This question assumes importance in a case like the one in hand where the assessee is nothing more than a commercial establishment/business enterprise engaged in the business of printing, publishing and selling of books in this country. The label 'University Press' is not sufficient to establish that it is engaged in any educational activity. The purpose of the existence of the assessee in this country as appears from the material on record, is possibly to earn profit. If the interpretation of the provisions in Section 10(22) of the Act as urged on behalf of the assessee is accepted the provision will be exposed to challenge on the ground of being irrational and therefore arbitrary. Then the question will arise for what purpose is this exemption from tax extended to the assessee? How is it different from the large number of such establishments engaged in the business of printing, publishing and selling of books. (p. 670) 12. Y.K. Sabharwal, J, (as his Lordship then was), in his concurring opinion, expressed the view as follows: Thus, it is evident that for the purposes of granting exemption the Legislature assumed the existence of educational activity in India by a University or other educational institution but did not want to restrict the exemption only to such University or educational institution which is established or constituted or set up in India. That seems to be the reason for not placing limitation as to the setting up of such a body in India. That seems to be the reason for not placing limitation as to the setting up of such a body in India. In this view a foreign university would also be entitled to claim exemption so long as it was imparting education in India. The basic requirement of the Section is the existence of 'education purpose' which, in other words, means the imparting of education which has to be in India. A university established in a foreign country is not excluded from the ambit of Section 10(22) in case it is imparting education in India or has some educational activity in India. It is not the case of the assessee nor is there any such finding that the assessee is imparting any education or has any educational activity in India. In this view the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption. Any other interpretation would be absurd and manifestly unjust. The absence of word 'India' in this provision is inconsequential. It has to be read into Section 10(22). The literal construction would lead to manifestly unreasonable and absurd consequences as indicated above. (p. 685) 13. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in Secondary Board of Education v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 408 (Orissa). In the said case, the Division Bench was dealing with the entitlement of Board of Secondary Education, Orissa for getting exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act. The Bench referred to the creation of the Board under the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1953 which was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Board to regulate, control and develop secondary education in the State of Orissa by providing varied courses with a view to equipping pupils for different occupations for education in the university and for other cultural purposes and to examine those who have completed a prescribed course of study and to award certificate to successful candidates and doing all other things incidental thereto. Their Lordships referred to Section 11 of the Act in extenso and the creation of the Board fund under Section 12 and also to the regulations framed thereunder and eventually came to express the view as follows: Coming to the point in issue the position of law can be put thus: Under the Act the Board has a fund. There are various sources of income constituting the fund. There are various sources of income constituting the fund. One of the sources of income is earning profits by compilation, publication, printing and sale of text books. The profits so earned enter into the Board fund. The income and expenditure of the Board is controlled and the entire expenditure is to be directed towards development and expansion of educational purposes. Even if there is some surplus it is not appropriated by others but remains as a part of the sinking fund to be devoted to the cause of education as and when necessary. This being the objective and there being various ways of control of the income and expenditure, the Board of Secondary Education cannot be said to be existing for purposes of profits. It exists solely for purposes of education. The income of the Board cannot, therefore, be computed in the total income of the previous year under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.... (p. 416) 14. The High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Academy of General Education [1984] 150 ITR 135 : 16 Taxman 418, while dealing with the entitlement of exemption by the Academy of General Education, Manipal, analysed the object of the academy which was to make available technical and commercial education in as many as 47 subjects to give training in technical, commercial or any other form of education to train the students to eke out their livelihood and such other activities. Their Lordships referred to the decisions rendered in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust's case (supra), Aditanar Educational Institution's case (supra), Katra Education Society v. ITO [1978] 111 ITR 420 (All.), Governing Body of Rangaraya Medical College v. ITO [1979] 117 ITR 284 (AP), Secondary Board of Education's case (supra) and came to hold that the assessee was a registered society and it carried on organised activities as per the objects set out in the memorandum. Its primary object was to establish, support, manage or conduct schools, colleges and such other educational institutions. It had income of its own. In its balance-sheet, neither the income of the twenty-two colleges or institutions established under separate trusts, nor the income of the nine schools which were run directly by the assessee had been included. The assessee out of its income had given outright grants to some of those schools. The assessee had not spent its income for any purpose unconnected with education. The assessee out of its income had given outright grants to some of those schools. The assessee had not spent its income for any purpose unconnected with education. It was, therefore, an educational institution existing purely for educational purposes and not for profit. 15. The High Court of Gujarat in Gujarat State Co-operative Union v. CIT [1992] 195 ITR 279 referred to the purpose for which the Gujarat State Co-operative Union was established and scanning the activities of the society, held that the society was engaged in educational activities. 16. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in American Hotel & Lodging Association Educational Institute v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [2008] 301 ITR 86 : 170 Taxman 306 (SC) wherein their Lordships, while dealing with the scope of Section 10(22) of the Act, expressed as follows: Actual existence of the educational institution was the pre-condition of the application for initial approval under Section 10(22). On the grant of approval under Section 10(22), Sections 11 and 13 did not apply. Therefore, earlier prior to 1-4-1999, when exemption was given to the appellant, there was no assessment nor demand. Section 10(22) had an automatic effect. Once an applicant-institution came within the phrase 'exists solely for educational purposes and not for profit' no other conditions like application of income were required to be complied with. The prescribed authority was only required to examine the nature, activities and genuineness of the institution. The above phrase was the only requirement for initial approval. The mere existence of profit/surplus did not disqualify the institution if the sole purpose of its existence was riot profit-making but educational activities as Section 10(22) by its very nature contemplated income of such institution to be exempted. Under Section 10(22), the test was restricted to the character of the recipient of income, viz., whether it had the character of educational institution in India, its character outside India was irrelevant for deciding whether its income would be exempt under Section 10(22). The moot question in Section 10(22) was - whether the activities of the applicant came within the definition of 'income of educational institution'. Under Section 10(22), one had to closely analyse the activities of the institute, the objects of the institute and its source of income and its utilisation. The moot question in Section 10(22) was - whether the activities of the applicant came within the definition of 'income of educational institution'. Under Section 10(22), one had to closely analyse the activities of the institute, the objects of the institute and its source of income and its utilisation. Even if one of the objects enabled the institute to undertake commercial activity, the institute would not be entitled to approval under Section . The said section, inter alia, excludes the income of the educational institute from the total income. In Addl CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association reported in [1980] 121 ITR 1, it has been held by this Court that the test of predominant object of the activity is to be seen whether it exists solely for education and not to earn profit. However, the purpose would not lose its character merely because some profit arises from the activity. That, it is not possible to carry on educational activity in such a way that the expenditure exactly balances the income and there is no resultant profit, for, to achieve this, would not only be difficult of practical realization but would reflect unsound principles of management. In order to ascertain whether the institute is carried on with the object of making profit or not it is duty of the prescribed authority to ascertain whether the balance of income is applied wholly and exclusively to the objects for which the applicant is established. In deciding the character of the recipient, it is not necessary to look at the profits of each year, but to consider the nature of the activities undertaken in India. If the Indian activity has no co-relation to education, exemption has to be denied, seethe judgment of this Court in Oxford University Press [2001] 247 ITR 658 (supra). Therefore, the character of the recipient of income must have character of educational institution in India to be ascertained from the nature of the activities. If after meeting expenditure, surplus remains incidentally from the activity carried on by the educational institution, it will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes. In other words, existence of surplus from the activity will not mean absence of educational purpose - seethe judgment of this Court in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310. The test is - the nature of activity. In other words, existence of surplus from the activity will not mean absence of educational purpose - seethe judgment of this Court in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl CIT [1997] 224 ITR 310. The test is - the nature of activity. If the activity like running a printing press takes place it is not educational. But whether the income/profit has been applied for non-educational purpose has to be decided only at the end of the financial year. In Oxford University Press [2001] 247 ITR 658 (supra) this Court found that the applicant was a branch of Oxford Press which was part of the Oxford University but its activity in India was restricted to publishing books, journals, periodicals, etc. The Tribunal held that because Oxford Press is part of the University its income was exempt under Section 10(22) as it stood at the relevant time. It is in this context that the words 'existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit' in Section 10(22), which words also find place in Section 10(23C)(vi), came for consideration. This Court held that location of the University is not relevant what is relevant is - whether there is imparting of education in India.... (p. 104) Thereafter, their Lordships referred to the insertion of the proviso to Section 10(23C)(vi) and distinguished the decision rendered in Oxford University Press' case (supra). 17. From a perusal of the aforesaid decisions, it is lucid that for the entitlement for getting exemption for the assessment year, it is required to see the activities of the assessee. That is the acid test. If the income/profit is applied for non-educational purposes, it is decided only at the end of the financial year. It is to be seen whether the assessee is engaged in any kind of educational activities. The authorities which we have referred to above have laid down the criteria under what circumstances an assessee can claim exemption being involved in educational purposes and how the income is spent. We have already referred to the memorandum of association and also stated about reasonings assigned by the CIT (Appeals) to deny the exemption and the analysis made by the Tribunal to dislodge the finding of the first appellate authority. It is worth noting that the Assessing Officer has not ascribed any reason. 18. We have already referred to the memorandum of association and also stated about reasonings assigned by the CIT (Appeals) to deny the exemption and the analysis made by the Tribunal to dislodge the finding of the first appellate authority. It is worth noting that the Assessing Officer has not ascribed any reason. 18. In view of the aforesaid analysis and regard being had to the concept of educational purpose as is understood in the context of Section 10(22) of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the forums below have really not applied their mind to the relevant issue. It is worth noting, there has been no dissection of the role played by the Corporation and whether its activity has any nexus with the educational purpose as per the principles laid down by their Lordships of the Apex Court and various High Courts. We are disposed to think that there has to be detailed analysis of the facts pertaining to the activities carried out by the Association from year to year and thereafter arrive at a conclusion whether the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of exemption. Be it noted, the exemption need not be in entirety or totality. There can be a case where there can be a partial exemption if the income of the previous year falls within the basic conceptuality of Section of the Act. Bereft of the aforesaid analysis, the orders are unsustainable. Hence, it would be apposite to set aside the order passed by the forums in all the appeals and remit the matter to the Assessing Officer to consider the case after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It would be open to the assessee-Corporation to file requisite documents to bring the case within the parameters of law which we have referred to above. 19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.