CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce

55 ITR 722Supreme Court of India1965#581 most cited

What is CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce authority for?

An organization qualifies as having a charitable purpose if its primary object is the advancement of general public utility, even if its members receive incidental benefits. The existence of incidental non-charitable objects does not negate its charitable status.

167

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce · 55 ITR 722 · section 2(15) · section 11 · section 12A · charitable purpose · advancement of general public utility · incidental benefit to members · primary object test · Chamber of Commerce

Sections most often in play

Section 2(15)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 12Section 12ABSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilityproviso to section 2(15)section 73section 11(4a)section 2(15)section 10(23c)section 11(1)(a)section 11(1)registration under section 12asection 12aa

Judgments citing CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

…ng from such promotion may be shared by those engaged in the industrial sector. The benefit to these cannot deter the claim of the assessee to be a ‘Charitable institution'. In the words of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC): “The principal objects of the assessee are to protect, trade, commerce and industries and to aid, stimulate and promote the development of trade, commerce and industries in India or any part thereof. By the achievement of these objects, it is not intended to serve merely the interests of the members of the assessee. Advancement or promotion…

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

…ng from such promotion may be shared by those engaged in the industrial sector. The benefit to these cannot deter the claim of the assessee to be a ‘Charitable institution'. In the words of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC): “The principal objects of the assessee are to protect, trade, commerce and industries and to aid, stimulate and promote the development of trade, commerce and industries in India or any part thereof. By the achievement of these objects, it is not intended to serve merely the interests of the members of the assessee. Advancement or promotion…

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 653/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…l on the record to demonstrate and to establish that the assessee had derived profit by selling its housing units. In support of his contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1955] 55 ITR 722, wherein it had been held as under: Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs. ACIT (E), Raipur “The expression 'object of general public utility, however, is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole of mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. To serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary…

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 652/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…l on the record to demonstrate and to establish that the assessee had derived profit by selling its housing units. In support of his contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1955] 55 ITR 722, wherein it had been held as under: Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs. ACIT (E), Raipur “The expression 'object of general public utility, however, is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole of mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. To serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary…

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 651/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…l on the record to demonstrate and to establish that the assessee had derived profit by selling its housing units. In support of his contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1955] 55 ITR 722, wherein it had been held as under: Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs. ACIT (E), Raipur “The expression 'object of general public utility, however, is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole of mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. To serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary…

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 650/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…l on the record to demonstrate and to establish that the assessee had derived profit by selling its housing units. In support of his contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1955] 55 ITR 722, wherein it had been held as under: Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs. ACIT (E), Raipur “The expression 'object of general public utility, however, is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole of mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. To serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary…

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 649/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

…l on the record to demonstrate and to establish that the assessee had derived profit by selling its housing units. In support of his contention, Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1955] 55 ITR 722, wherein it had been held as under: Chhattisgarh Housing Board vs. ACIT (E), Raipur “The expression 'object of general public utility, however, is not restricted to objects beneficial to the whole of mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. To serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CGO COMPLEX, HAPUR CHUNGI vs. KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MOTIJHEEL, KANPUR

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

…is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility, but not so, if it seeks to promote the interest of those who conduct the said trade or industry (CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC)]. If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity [Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1979] 2 Τахтап 501 (SC)]. 21. A…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

…se 126 taxman 365 (SC) e. CIT vs Madras Jewelers & Diamond Merchants Associations 129 ITR CIT vs Madras Jewelers & Diamond Merchants Associations 129 ITR CIT vs Madras Jewelers & Diamond Merchants Associations 129 ITR 214 f. CIT vs Andhra Chambers of Commerce 55 ITR 722 (SC) CIT vs Andhra Chambers of Commerce 55 ITR 722 (SC) [Appellant has placed reliance on several other case laws as well] ced reliance on several other case laws as well] ced reliance on several other case laws as well] Without prejudice, the Appellant has submitted that even if it is Without prejudice, the Appellant has submitted that even if it…

FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN BUSINESS IN INDIA,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2446/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

…opean Business in India 8. The applicant has also relied on a plethora of judicial pronouncement in support of its claim for registration. The cases relied upon by the applicant are as under: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Federation of India Chambers of Commerce & Industries (1981) 6 Taxmann 7 (SC) 3. India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) (2015) 53Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 4. Confederation of Pharma Dealers Association vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [2022] 137 Taxmann.com…

PRINTECH PARK CLUSTER BANGALORE,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1065/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…the Hon’ble Kolkata Tribunal order in the case of Indian Chambers of Commerce reported in (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 52 in which the Tribunal had relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce reported in (1965) 55 ITR 722. The Tribunal further relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization vs. Director General of Income-tax (Exptns.) & Others reported in (2015) 371 ITR 333 in which it was explained that if an institution is not driven primarily by a desire or motive to earn profits, but to do the charity th…

MARWADI NAVYUVAK VACHANALAYA ,LATUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/PUN/2025[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandamarwadi Navyuvak Vachanalaya Cit(Exemption), Pune Marwadi Navyuvak Vachanal, Vs. Main Road, Latur – 413512 Pan: Aabtm2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

…fit and the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee. He submitted that when the Revenue challenged the above decision of the Hon’ble High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as reported in 130 ITR 184 (SC). 6 8. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Oswal Bandhu Samaj vs. ITO (2022) 195 ITD 200 (Pune-Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that where the assessee trust, registered under section 12A and engaged in providing medical help, education help and relief to poor had let…

THE JEWELLERS AND DIAMOND TRADERS ASSOCIATION,MADRAS vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)

…7. We have heard the rival submissions perused the materials available on record and gone through the order of the authorities along with the case laws relied upon by both the parties. We observed that in the case of CIT v Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “It was not the case of the assessee that the objects of incorporation were relief of the poor, education or medical relief. The principal objects of the assessee were to promote and protect trade, commerce and industries and to aid, stimulate and promote the development of trade, commerce and indust…

M/S. GEDEE MEDICAL FOUNDATION,COIMBATORE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:521/Chny/2025 M/S. Gedee Medical Foundation, The Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chettipalayam Road, Vs. (Exemption), Podanur, Chennai – 600 034. Coimbatore – 641 023. [Pan: Aabtg-5427-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…vities commercial, especially when such surplus is either incidental or arises from interest income on fixed deposits and is ploughed back into charitable purposes. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions (e.g., CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC); CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC)) has held that earning income in the course of pursuing charitable objects does not disentitle an entity from claiming charitable status, so long as the dominant purpose remains charitable and not profit-making. 11. The Commissioner’s comparison of the assessee’s fi…

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT
Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

…he Hon'ble Court has propounded the idea of strict interpretation of statute Further, in order to benchmark the scope of genuineness, I have derived inspiration from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Chamber of Commerce in (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) wherein their lordships have found that "The word charity connotes altruism in thought and action. It involves an idea of benefiting others rather than oneself. 16. The registration u/s. 12A granted on 25/08/1975 and consequent registration u/s. 12AB r.w.s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act dated 25/08/1975 is cancelled on following grounds. All the g…

BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)- 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010
Section 2(15)Section 45(1)Section 6

…her the object which is said to be non-charitable is the main or primary object of the trust or institution or it is ancillary or incidental to the dominent object which is charitable. Reiterating its earlier view in CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, [(1965) 55 ITR 722] the Supreme Court said in Surat Art Silk case (supra) that if the primary purpose is advancement of objects for general public utility, the institution would remain charitable, even if an incidental non-charitable object for achieving that purpose was contemplated. In the case of Andhra Chamber of Commerce (supra) it was held that a Chamber of Co…

BISA NEEMA PANCHAYAT BHAWAN TRUST,M.G ROAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) BHOPAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 480/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 253(5)

…(Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT, (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)). The section of community sought to be benefited must be either sufficiently defined or identifiable by a common quality of a public or impersonal nature. (CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, 55 ITR 722).” [Emphasis supplied] Therefore, the contention of Ld. AR that the section 13(1)(b) is per se not applicable to assessee, being a ‘charitable-cum-religious’ body is not acceptable as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that what needs to be examined is whether or not the objects/activities are for…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. PALLAVI MISHRA,

ITA/10/2022HC Rajasthan14 Nov 2024

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

Section 12Section 12ASection 260A

…t Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 has held that “when an object is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility. Similar view expressed in CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC). 8.8 In the light of ratio of various decisions, some of which have been quoted above, it is evident that the objects of the assessee trust meant for benefit of pharma dealers would undoubtedly fall within the fourth limb of Section 2 (15) of the Act i.e. ‘the advancement of any other object of general public utility’ which has been held…

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2509/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 12ASection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2510/Mum/2024 [Assessment Year: 2011-12] St. Joseph's Education and Medical Relief Society St. Joseph Convent- 64A, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai- 400050 PAN: AAATS2693D (Appellant) Income Tax Officer (E.)-(Ι)- (1) 6th Floor, MTNL Tel. Ex. Building, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai- 400026. (Respondent) ITA No.2509/M/2024 [Assessment Year: 2010-11] ITA No.2511/M/2024 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] ITA No.2553/M/2024 [Assessment Year: 2009-10] St. Joseph's Education a…

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

ITA 452/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

…ct is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade or industry that object becomes an object of public utility. but not so, if it seeks to promote the interest of those who conduct the said trade or industry-CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965)55 ITR 722(SC). If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity—Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association (1980) 121 ITR 1(SC). 15. The present case in our vi…

Showing 1–20 of 167 · Page 1 of 9

...