How many judgments cite CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce?

167 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (55 ITR 722), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 2(15), Section 11, Section 12A, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 12.

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce

55 ITR 722Supreme Court of India1965#583 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 366,314 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 11 Section 12A Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 12 Section 12AB Section 147

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…t 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…

Federation of Trade Association of Pune, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2776/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2776/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…rotect the interests of trade and commerce. Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether such objects can be brought within the purview of “object of general public utility”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) considered a case in which the assessee therein, a chamber of commerce, had principal objects “to promote and protect trade, commerce and industries” and to stimulate and promote the development of trade, commerce and industries in India or any part thereof. In the light of such objectives, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that public is vi…

Building Committee (Society), Barnala vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1295/CHANDI/2019[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 May 2021

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-Building Committee (Society) Barnala Cit (Exemption) H.No.B-Xi-1252 Vs. Chandigarh. Mohanlal Colony Ward-19 Barnala, Punjab. Pan : Aadtb 5259 K (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Smt. C Chandrakanta, Cit Dr : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Ar Assessee By सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/05/2021 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Smt. C Chandrakanta, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ition of law that for the purpose of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the threshold condition i.e. genuineness of the activities is to be decided with the object clause of institution. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce - (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) held that an object beneficial to a section of the public was an object of general public utility, as in the case of assessee, which is working to control, supervise and regulate a profession for the benefit of lawyers community at large. Operative part of the judgment is as under:- "That the expression "object of general public utility" was…

Agra Development Authority, Agra vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 216/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2021AY 2011-12

Section 124Section 142Section 153

…the pay wards, it was held, that the surplus was utilized for the benefit of the other patients should justify the inference, that it was not business with profit motive. (3.5) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce - (1965) 55 ITR 722 - laid down the principle that if the primary purpose of institution was advancement of objects of general public utility, it would remain charitable, even if some incidental or ancillary activity or the purpose for achieving the main purpose, was profitable in nature. It was held as follows: "That if the primary purpose be advancement of objects…

Dhatri Foundation, Visakhapatnam vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 252/VIZ/2020[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri I.Kama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR

Section 12A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 252/VIZ/2020 Dhatri Foundation, vs. CIT (Exemption), D.No. 50-113-9, Hyderabad. Balayyasastry Lay Out, Visakhapatnam (Urban) PAN No. AACTD 3056 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri I.Kama Sastry, CA. Department by : Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR Date of hearing : 04/03/2021. Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2021. O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has b…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corpn Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2877/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgan, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 617

…ject is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade industry that object becomes an object of public utility, but not s if it seeks to promote the interest of those who conduct the said trade or industry [CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1985) 55 ITR 722 (SC)]. If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity [Addl CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 378 :(1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC…

…ject is to promote or protect the interest of a particular trade industry that object becomes an object of public utility, but not s if it seeks to promote the interest of those who conduct the said trade or industry [CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1985) 55 ITR 722 (SC)]. If the CO No 42/Mum/20 ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 9 of 37 primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charity [Addl CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cl…

M/S. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur vs. Add.CIT. Range-2, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

…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 ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. conduct the said trade or industry ( CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce[1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC)]. If the primary or predominant object of any 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 manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). The present case…

The Director of Income Tax Exemptions vs. Iskcon Charities

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

ITA/415/2011HC Karnataka15 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

…by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the assessee is a charitable institution registered under Section 12A of the Act. The Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANDHRA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE’, (1965) 55 ITR 722 held that an object beneficial to a section of public is an object of general public utility. It has further been held that in order to serve a charitable purpose, it is not necessary that the object should be to the benefit of whole of mankind or all the persons in particular country or state and it is sufficient, if the 13 inten…

Shri Vijay Makhija S/O Shri Govind Ram Makhija vs. The Principal Commissioner of Tax-I

ITA/81/2019HC Rajasthan29 Jul 2020

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Chaudhary and Mr. Vijay ChawlaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr

Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 3Section 38Section 38(1)Section 72

…' Assn.6).” 16. Furthermore, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority’s case (supra) has considered all its earlier judgments qua Section 2(15) of the 4 (1982) 2 SCC 542 : 1982 SCC (Tax) 151 : (1983) 140 ITR 1 5 (1965) 55 ITR 722 6 (1980) 2 SCC 31 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 170 : (1980) 121 ITR 1 Page 14 of 20 (Tax Case No.81/2019) Act of 1961 and summed up the conclusions as under: - “IV. Summation of conclusions 269. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of “chari…

Advocaye Welfare Fund Trustee Committee, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 9334/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 23Section 3Section 4Section 80G

…ering an application for registration. The stage for consideration of the relevance of the object of the assessee and the application of its funds arises at the time of assessment.” 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce – (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) held that an object beneficial to a section of the public was an object of general public utility, as in the case of appellant, which is working to control, supervise and regulate a profession for the benefit of lawyers community at large. Operative part of the judgment is as under :- “That the expression "object of general public utility" wa…

Bar Council of Delhi, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

ITA 9333/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2020

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3(1)(f)Section 80G

…ring an application for registration. The stage for consideration of the relevance of the object of the assessee and the application of its funds arises at the time of assessment.” 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce – (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC) held that an object beneficial to a section of the public was an object of general public utility, as in the case of appellant, which is working to control, supervise and regulate a profession for the benefit of lawyers community at large. Operative part of the judgment is as under :- “That the expression "object of general public utility"…

Niit Foundation, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar , CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

…of classes for open university / distance education can not be construed as charitable activity within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. The Patna High Court, after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 and in the case of CIT v. Sole Trustee, LokaShikshana Trust [1970] 77 ITR 61 (Mys.) has observed as follows at page 615 of the ITR; " It is true that by reason of the Finance Act, 1983, the question as to whether any charitable institution is being run with a profit motive or not has lost its relevant. However, the word "charitable" prefixing the…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. Indian Ports Association, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Kedia, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e Tribunal is justified in taking the view that the assessee, which is a chamber of commerce and industry, is carrying on business activities which require compliance with the conditions of Section 11 (4A). In CIT, Madras vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722, it was held by the Supreme Court that advancement or promotion of trade, commerce and industry leading to economic prosperity enured for the benefit of the entire community; that prosperity would be shared also by those who engaged in trade, commerce and industry, but on that account the purpose was not rendered any the less an object of general…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Ports Association, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1666/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh, [Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…he Tribunal is justified in taking the view that the assessee, which is a chamber of commerce and industry, is carrying on business activities which require compliance with the conditions of Section 11(4A). In CIT, Madras vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722, it was held by the Supreme Court that advancement or promotion of trade, commerce and industry leading to economic prosperity enured for the benefit of the entire community; that prosperity would be shared also by those who engaged in trade, commerce and industry, but on that account the purpose was not rendered any the less an object of general…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemption vs. Association of Third Party Administrators

The appeal is dismissed with no orders

ITA/1071/2018HC Delhi20 Jan 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 12ASection 260A

…haritable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being a valid charity - CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722. The test which has, therefore, to be applied is whether the object which is said to be non- charitable is a main or primary object of the trust or institution or it is ancillary or incidental to the dominant or primary object which is charitable. It was on an application of this test that in CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (supra), the And…

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. M/S Rajasthan Cricekt Association, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1356/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1355/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &