What is CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra authority for?

An organization’s purpose qualifies as 'general public utility' under section 2(15) if its primary objective is charitable, even if it incidentally benefits a specific group or generates some profit, provided the dominant motive is not profit-making. Such an entity is eligible for exemptions under the Act.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra?

74 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (130 ITR 28), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 12, Section 2(15), Section 12A, Section 12AB, Section 10(23)(c).

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (130 ITR 28)

LEGSYS.AI TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 4761/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri SamyakFor Respondent: 26.08.2025

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ation for rendering the services provided by the assessee to the judicial forums. We also draw support from the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee where the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra [1981] 130 ITR 28 (SC) held that the Bar Council of Maharashtra was not indulged in any activity for profit and that its primary or dominant purpose was for the advancement of the object of the general public utility. Though it was for the welfare of the Advocates, the same was for protecting the litigating public at large, where the obligatory function was to ensu…

LEGSYS.AI TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 4757/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri SamyakFor Respondent: 26.08.2025

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ation for rendering the services provided by the assessee to the judicial forums. We also draw support from the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee where the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra [1981] 130 ITR 28 (SC) held that the Bar Council of Maharashtra was not indulged in any activity for profit and that its primary or dominant purpose was for the advancement of the object of the general public utility. Though it was for the welfare of the Advocates, the same was for protecting the litigating public at large, where the obligatory function was to ensu…

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1136/CHANDI/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(ii)Section 13(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1136/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The CIT (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/o Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABTA7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of…

I.K. GUJRAL PUNJAB TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY,KAPURTHALA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 650/CHANDI/2024[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Somya Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 2(31)Section 8

…2005)147 Taxman 31 (Ahd ITAT)  Indus University vs. ACIT: (2018) 169 ITD 609 (Ahd ITAT)  Mormugao Port Trust Vs CIT; (2007) 109 ITD 303 (Panaji ITAT) 18.1 In ‘Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (U.P)’(supra), following ‘CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra’ (1981) 130 ITR 28(SC), it was held that since the object and activity of the assessee therein came within the perview of ‘charitable purpose’ under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, and since it was undisputed that the assessee was not carrying on its activity with the motive of earning profits, the assessee was an institution for charitable purpose within the m…

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

ITA 595/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 9

…oad Transport Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of "Additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufactures Association", (1980) 121 ITR 1 and "CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra", (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after due consideration of various earlier decisions, observed : "We have p…

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 250Section 251Section 56

…as been held that claim u/s.11 cannot be denied merely because the assessee did not avail exemption u/s.10(23C). He further submitted that similar observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there are other allied provision like 10(23C) which clearly indicate that Legislature did not intend to Rule out Section 11 when exemption was claimable under specific provision of Section 10. 8. So far as the issue, whether income derived by the assessee from an activity of running school can be trea…

LIGHT ASSOCIATES MINISTRY OF ST. BARNABA SOCIETY,KHAMMAM vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS)-3,, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 305/HYD/2021[2010-11`]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Light Associates Ministry Vs. Income Tax Officer Of St. Barnaba Society (Exemptions)-3 Khammam Hyderabad Pan:Aaatl4330L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate B. Nishitha Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2010-11. 2. There Is A Delay Of 490 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid Situation. After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Advocate B. NishithaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

…are Charitable as is provided under Section 2(15) i.e., imparting education to children and hence disallowing of exemption is illegal. 10. The Lower Appellate Authority failed to see that, the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR 28 any activity which is carried out for advancement of any object beneficial to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from an individual or group of individuals would be a charitable purpose and hence no exemption can be denied if the Appellant organisation is involved in such charitable activities and hence committed gross 11 The L…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

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

…llowing judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC) ii.Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC) Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 9.2 Further, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench held that, if primary purpose and predominant objec…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

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

…llowing judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC) ii.Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC) Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 9.2 Further, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench held that, if primary purpose and predominant objec…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

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

…llowing judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC) ii.Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC) Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 9.2 Further, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench held that, if primary purpose and predominant objec…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R

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

…llowing judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court: i. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1983] 140 ITR 1 (SC) ii.Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board [2007] 295 ITR 561 (SC) iii. CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC) Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 9.2 Further, in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1 (SC) a Constitution Bench held that, if primary purpose and predominant objec…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 68/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…ad Transport Corporation’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of “additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufactures Association”, (19800 121 ITR 1 and “CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra”, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board’s case (supra), the Hon’be Supreme Court after due consideration of various earlier decisions, observed: “We have pe…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 67/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…ad Transport Corporation’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of “additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufactures Association”, (19800 121 ITR 1 and “CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra”, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board’s case (supra), the Hon’be Supreme Court after due consideration of various earlier decisions, observed: “We have pe…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 66/JPR/2022[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…ad Transport Corporation’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while relying upon the earlier decisions in the matter of “additional CIT vs. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufactures Association”, (19800 121 ITR 1 and “CIT Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra”, (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC), held that if predominant object is to carry out a charitable purpose and not earn profit, the purpose would not lose its charitable character merely because some profit arises from the activity. 23. In Gujarat Maritime Board’s case (supra), the Hon’be Supreme Court after due consideration of various earlier decisions, observed: “We have pe…

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/LKW/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jun 2022AY 2017-18