INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES OF PHARMACY,CHENNAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

ITA 2969/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 September 202613 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the grant of registration under Section 12AB of the Act. The primary reason for denial was the CIT(E)'s finding that the assessee is a mutual benefit association and benefits its members rather than the public at large. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was formed under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. While the judgment mentions Section 12D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as empowering the society, it does not elaborate on the specific findings or reasoning regarding the mutual benefit aspect or the public benefit test in relation to the assessee's objects and activities. The judgment does not explicitly state the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal itself, only that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the registration. The operative directions are not detailed, and the specific relief granted or denied is not fully elaborated in the provided text.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Indian Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 2968 & 2969/CHNY/2026) against the orders dated 30.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. These orders rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a society, was formed with objects including acting as a national organization for member colleges of pharmacy, a catalyst for research in pharmacy, supporting member institutions, advocating for the field, organizing technical interactions, and recognizing educationalists. The assessee applied for registration on 26.09.2025. The CIT(E) sought information, which was provided on 06.01.2026. The CIT(E) concluded that the society benefited its members rather than the public at large, deeming it a mutual benefit association.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by holding that the assessee is a mutual benefit association and does not exist for the benefit of the public at large, contrary to the assessee's predominant object of promoting education in Pharmacy? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that its predominant object is to act as a catalyst in the field of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical applications, aiding research and analysis, which falls within the ambit of 'Education' under Section 2(15) of the Act. It contended that it exists for the benefit of the student community nationwide, providing guidance, and thus satisfies the public benefit test. The assessee also pointed out that it was previously granted registration under Section 12A and that its objects and activities remain unaltered. It further argued that its activities, such as seminars and lectures, do not involve mutuality, and the rules prohibit the application of income to trustees/members, making the assumption of mutuality incorrect. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the learned CIT-DR, opposed the assessee's submissions, asserting that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) passed a well-reasoned order considering the assessee's objects and that the order should not be interfered with.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 2(15),Section 12A,Section 12D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES,

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI

Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These are two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Chennai denying grant of Registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 both dated 30.03.2026. PHARMACHY [A]

2.

Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both these appeals of the Assessee, we pro

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →