11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society v. Hon’ble ITAT Held

79 ITD 112Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21381 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)(vi)Section 11Section 11(4A)Section 12ASection 12AASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 80G

Judgments citing 11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society v. Hon’ble ITAT Held

Aadya Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 11Section 12A

…the predominant motive, purpose and object of the assessee and that mere surplus from incidental or ancillary activities did not disentitle claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society vs. Hon’ble ITAT Held that profit making should Asstt. CIT, 79 ITD 112 Cuttack not be in accomplishing or (Cuttack) carrying out the objects but should be for the purpose of the object. In other words, profit making is not prohibited if it subserves the charity. 9. Ashutosh Charitable ITAT Chandigarh At the stage of grant of Trust of Educational & registration u/s 12AA of the Medical Sciences, vs. Act, CIT is require…

Aadya Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(E), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2676/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 11Section 12A

…the predominant motive, purpose and object of the assessee and that mere surplus from incidental or ancillary activities did not disentitle claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society vs. Hon’ble ITAT Held that profit making should Asstt. CIT, 79 ITD 112 Cuttack not be in accomplishing or (Cuttack) carrying out the objects but should be for the purpose of the object. In other words, profit making is not prohibited if it subserves the charity. 9. Ashutosh Charitable ITAT Chandigarh At the stage of grant of Trust of Educational & registration u/s 12AA of the Medical Sciences, vs. Act, CIT is require…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Mettam Penchala Naidu

ITTA/59/2010HC Telangana18 Sept 2018

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

Section 254(2)

…ce on the original order dated 19.1.1990 by the Tribunal in which the method of accounting adopted by the assessee was not accepted and the exemption u/s.11 was denied. He also placed reliance on the following decisions: Samajbadi Society-vs-ACIT 79 ITD 112, ACIT-Vs-Thanthi Trust 247 ITR 785 and Sole Trustee, Loka Sikshana Trust-Vs-CIT 101 ITR 234. 3. Paragraph-5 “Ground Nos.2 and 3 relate to applicability of Section 11(4A) to the facts of assessee’s case. The assessee is aggrieved by applying the provisions of section 11(4A) of the Act to the facts of this case by the lower authorities.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

ITTA/58/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

Section 254(2)

…ce on the original order dated 19.1.1990 by the Tribunal in which the method of accounting adopted by the assessee was not accepted and the exemption u/s.11 was denied. He also placed reliance on the following decisions: Samajbadi Society-vs-ACIT 79 ITD 112, ACIT-Vs-Thanthi Trust 247 ITR 785 and Sole Trustee, Loka Sikshana Trust-Vs-CIT 101 ITR 234. 3. Paragraph-5 “Ground Nos.2 and 3 relate to applicability of Section 11(4A) to the facts of assessee’s case. The assessee is aggrieved by applying the provisions of section 11(4A) of the Act to the facts of this case by the lower authorities.…

11 of the Act. 8. Samajbadi Society v. Hon’ble ITAT Held (79 ITD 112) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax