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 366,005 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

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…ublic facility is to be fulfilled, it is worth noting that a section of public is also considered to be public. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of a Chamber of Commerce [CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965)] (55 ITR 722) wherein it was ruled that even though the Andhra Chamber of Commerce was established only to serve the traders and businessmen in the State of Andhra Pradesh, such traders and businessmen constituted a section of public and therefore the Chamber existed for a public charitable purpose. In the ultimate analysis of the facts in the case of assessee…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Exemptions) vs. M/S Indian Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/319/2017HC Delhi07 Sept 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 260A

…e Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust c. 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 (1965) 55 ITR 722]” 14. After noticing the decision in CIT v. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust [2002] 254 ITR 212 (SC), the Supreme Court in Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (supra) concluded as under: “In the present case, the objects of the respondent-trust are based on religious tenets under Quran according to religious faith of Islam. We have already noticed that the perusal of th…

The Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemption), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5093/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 26

…t of this order, we hold that the departmental grounds have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 7.5 We further note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, 55 ITR 722 has observed as under:- “10. The principal objects of the assessee are to promote and 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 as…

DDIT, Chennai vs. The South Indian Film Chamber of Commerce, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 449/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…rce or rendering any services in relation to a trade, business or commerce. According to him, assessee’s prime objective was to promote trade and commerce. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce 130 ITR 184 for arriving at a conclusion that predominant object of the assessee was promotion of trade and commerce, which was one general public utility, without any intention ITA No. 449/Mds/2013. :- 5 -: for making profits. According to him, when profit making was not the predominant activity carried on by an assessee it could not be denied exemptio…

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5065/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit – 2(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Ahura Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri – East Mumbai – 400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl6442L Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Assessee By Shri Arvind Sonde Alongwith Shri Sampat Kabra Revenue By Smt. S.Padmaja

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 80Section 80l

…illed, it is worth noting that a section of public is also considered to be public. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of a Chamber of Commerce [CIT vs. Andhra M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Chamber of Commerce (1965)] (55 ITR 722) wherein it was ruled that even though the Andhra Chamber of Commerce was established only to serve the traders and businessmen in the State of Andhra Pradesh, such traders and businessmen constituted a section of public and therefore the Chamber existed for a public charitable purpose. In the ultimate analysis of the facts in the case of assessee…

M/S. the Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi vs. DDIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1325/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Jain & Sh. MadhurFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

…enue are liable to be deleted. 5.9 The assessee’s counsel further submits that promotion of trade, commerce and industries also comes within the purview of section 2(15) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce, 55 ITR 722, observed that the expression object of general public utility would not necessarily mean that the object should be to benefit the whole of mankind. 5.10 It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the judgment relied upon by the AO of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certificatio…

ACIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Peoples Forum, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objections filed

ITA 325/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010 Acit (Exemptions), Aayakar Vs. M/S. Peoples Forum, Plot Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. No.Hig 44, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aaatp 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 288A

…mphases in bold italics provided by me): C.O. No .45 / CT K/201 5 Asse ss ment Y ear :2009 -2010 `(i) The word 'Charity' connotes altruism in thought and action. It involves an idea of' benefiting others rather than oneself [Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC)] (ii) A commercial concern is not an object of relief of the poor on the ground that it provides employment. The object should provide relief directly and not indirectly [Yograj Charity Trust [1976] 103 ITR 777(SC)] iii) For a trust to be accepted as a charitable trust for the purposes of exemption, it is necessary that the objects should b…

M/S. All India Resort Development Association, Bangalore vs. ADIT (E), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6479/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiall India Resort Development Adit(E) Association, No. 582, 1St Floor, Inves. Cir,-1, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 6Th Cross, 11Th Main Hal, 2Nd Aayakar Bhawan, Distt. Stage, Bangalore Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Pan:Aaaaa4550A Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. M. Vishwanathan, CA

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

…of definition of Charitable purpose u/s 2(15) viz advancement of any other object of general public utility”. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in appreciating the cases cited in support of the stand of the appellant. (i) CIT Vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722. (ii) Federation of Chambers of Commerce & Industry 130 ITR 186 (SC) 4. The appellant therefore prays that the proposal to be made by the learned CIT (A) for withdrawal of registration u/s 12A may be reversed.” 3. The above appeal is recalled by the order of the coordinate bench in MA No. 55/del/2014 dated 19/09/2014. The brief facts of the issue…

Dy D.I.T. (E)-I(1), Mumbai vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 4177/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…n object 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 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 d ominant pu rp ose, wou ld n ot prevent the institution from being a valid charity—Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association 121 ITR 1 (SC). 15. The present case in our v…

M/S. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. The ADIT(E) RG- 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3841/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

The Indian Merchants Chambers, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4076/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri V.S.Jadhav

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 25Section 28

…d object being incidental or ancillary to the main activity, even if carried out for profit, would not mitigate or change the “charitable” in nature. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Chamber of Commerce (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC), wherein principle was laid down to the effect that if the primary purpose be advancement of objects of general public utility, it would remain charitable even if an incidental entry into the political domain for achieving the main purpose, was profitable in nature. It was further observed that basic principle underlying the definition of “c…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

M/S. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Uttar Pradesh vs. CIT (E), Lucknow

The appeal is allowed

ITA 113/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

For Appellant: S/Shri Balbir Singh & AbhinavFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT( DR)

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 6

…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 vs. 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 vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturer Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC)]." 20 Applying the…

Director of Income Tax vs. M/S Group Vocational

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/199/2015HC Karnataka23 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 12ASection 12aSection 13Section 2(15)Section 260

…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 vs. 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 vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC). 11. The pre…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Bagalkot Town Development Authority

ITA/100027/2014HC Karnataka15 Dec 2015

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 260ASection 263

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR ITA NO.100027/2014 Between: The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road, Belgaum. …. Appellant (By Sri Y.V.Raviraj, Adv.,) And: Bagalkot Town Development Authority, Belgaum Road, Bagalkot-587 102. …. Respondent (By Sri Parthasarathi & Sri H.R. Kambiyavar, Advs.,) This ITA is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, praying to, set aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bang…

M/S Rabiya Basari Brahamath-Ullah Allayha Charitable Trust vs. CIT

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Kum. Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 1Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

…ble trust. (Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Trust v. CIT). In CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce; Ahmedabad Rana Caste Assn. v. CIT; Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT and Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT and CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce,[1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC), it was observed that objects for service and benefit to the general masses would indicate that they are meant for public purpose and thus, would create a public charitable trust. 34.Indubitably, the word ‘charity’ connotes altruism in thought and action and involves an idea of benefiting others rather than oneself. (Andhra Chamber of Commerc…

DDIT (E), Delhi vs. M/S. All India Football Federation, New Delhi

ITA 6352/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 11Section 2(15)

…e objective of general public utility, carrying on bonafide activities in furtherance of such activities of general public utility would not be hit by proviso to section 2(15).” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce 55 ITR 722 that only the predominant object for which the organization was created is alone to be considered for the purpose for determining whether the nature of activities fall within the scope and ambit of ‘charity’. The ratio laid down in this case was followed again in the case of Five Judges decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addition…

Sadiya Educational and Charitable Trust vs. CIT

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 422/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.422 & 1632/Bang/2013 M/S. Sadiya Educational & Charitable Trust, Mattadgadde Road, Sadiya Nagar, Shiralkoppa-577 428 …. Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (D.R)

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)