CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra

130 ITR 28Supreme Court of India1981#1524 most cited

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.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra · Section 2(15) · charitable purpose · general public utility · dominant object · not for profit · incidental profit · Section 11 exemption · Section 12 · Section 10(23A)

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 12ABSection 10(23)(c)Section 80GSection 10(20A)

Issues it is cited on

section 2(15)section 12a(1)(ac)(iii)registration under section 12asection 12aasection 12absection 12asection 12section 10section 11section 13prescribedindia

Judgments citing CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra

The DCIT, (Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Nandesari Industries Association, Nandesari

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Uma Prasad, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Chokshi, C.A
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…undertaking for commercial profit even as the undertaking may sub serve general public utility. The hon'ble courts have taken a very broad view of the connotations of "objects of general public utility". In the case of CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [1981] 130 ITR 28 (SC), the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a State Bar Council, which is clearly a regulatory body under the Advocates Act, is primarily and predominantly for the purposes of "advancement of an object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15)". It is not appropriate to proceed on the basis, as the learned Commissioner has ch…

The Indian Speech and Hearing Association (Isha) Bengalooru Chapter, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 980/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaithe Indian Speech & Hearing Association, (Isha), Bengaluru Chapter, Dr.S.R.Chandrashekar Institute Of Speech, Hennur Road, Bengaluru-560 005. … Appellant Pan:Aaai 1846 F Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 6(2)

…itable as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act. This cannot be a ground for denial of registration u/s 12AA of the Act. The learned counsel for assessee has rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra (130 ITR 28)(SC) wherein it is held as follows: “The preamble of the Advocates Act, 1961 shows that it was enacted with a view to amend and consolidate the law relating to legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All India Bar. Section 6(1) of the aforesaid Act lays down the obligatory functions, while section 6(2) indic…

M/S. the Andhra Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Colleges Management Associons, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/VIZ/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Apr 2019

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2016 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: - ) M/S Andhra Pradesh Private Medical Vs. Income Tax Officer & Dental Colleges Management (Exemptions) Association Rajahmundry D.No.52/1/1-5/B Road No.5, Veterinary Colony Vijayawada [Pan :Aaeat2041H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 12ASection 15Section 2Section 80G

…lice Welfare Society (1971) 82 ITR 704(SC) (vi) Bangalore Urban & Rural District Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Members and Employees Welfare Trust Vs. DIT (2016) 382 ITR 528 (Karn) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Andhra Pradesh Riding Club (1987) 168 ITR 393 (AP) (ix) Gujarat State Plastic Manufacturers Association Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. (1998) 150 CTR 97 (Guj) (x) New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association (NLC) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 165 CTR 0446 (Mad) 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR su…

The DCIT, (Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Nandesari Industries Association, Nandesari

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 174/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.171 & 174/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

…ofit even as the undertaking may sub serve general public utility. The hon'ble courts have taken a very broad view of the connotations of "objects ITA No.171 & 174/Ahd/2018 9 of general public utility". In the case of CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [1981] 130 ITR 28 (SC), the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a State Bar Council, which is clearly a regulatory body under the Advocates Act, is primarily and predominantly for the purposes of "advancement of an object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15)". It is not appropriate to proceed on the basis, as the learned Commissioner has ch…

The DCIT, (Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Nandesari Industries Association, Nandesari

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 171/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.171 & 174/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

…ofit even as the undertaking may sub serve general public utility. The hon'ble courts have taken a very broad view of the connotations of "objects ITA No.171 & 174/Ahd/2018 9 of general public utility". In the case of CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [1981] 130 ITR 28 (SC), the hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a State Bar Council, which is clearly a regulatory body under the Advocates Act, is primarily and predominantly for the purposes of "advancement of an object of general public utility within the meaning of section 2(15)". It is not appropriate to proceed on the basis, as the learned Commissioner has ch…

M/S. M P Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Bhopal), Bhopal vs. The CIT (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

ITA 217/IND/2015[-]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & And Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: M.P. Audyogik Kendra Cit(Exemption) Vikas Nigam, Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.Aaccm6048F Appellant By Shri Praveen N. Surange, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2019

Section 12ASection 25

…merce reported in (1965) 55 ITR 722 (SC), (.I.T. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation reported in (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC), Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association's case (1980) 120 ITR 1 (SC) and the Bar council of Maharashtra's case (1981) 130 ITR 28 (SC). K.Because Ld. CIT (E) has avoided himself to consider the most important and core issue raised in the application that in the similar circumstances CIT had already granted registration to two sister concerns namely MP Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Gwalior) Ltd and MP Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Jabalpur) Limited who were established under sa…

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E)1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 247/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…x v. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club (1977) 110 ITR 392; an association formed for the general benefit of the members of the legal profession was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1981) 130 ITR 28; a public utility undertaking such as a State Road Transport Corporation was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1. In all these cases the common thread which was noticed to run through was the absence of any motive of private profit. These de…

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3994/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…x v. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club (1977) 110 ITR 392; an association formed for the general benefit of the members of the legal profession was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1981) 130 ITR 28; a public utility undertaking such as a State Road Transport Corporation was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1. In all these cases the common thread which was noticed to run through was the absence of any motive of private profit. These de…

All India Rubber Industries Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1368/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 23Section 4Section 44A

…x v. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club (1977) 110 ITR 392; an association formed for the general benefit of the members of the legal profession was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1981) 130 ITR 28; a public utility undertaking such as a State Road Transport Corporation was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1. In all these cases the common thread which was noticed to run through was the absence of any motive of private profit. These de…

Seth Walchand Hirachand Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vaibhavi PatelFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan
Section 10(33)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…227 ITR 317) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] (135 ITR 485 ) (iv) Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax (143 ITR 584) (v) Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Bar Council of Maharashtra. (130 ITR 28) 9.4 The Ld. Senior Counsel referred the observations of these decisions and submitted that once the income is exempt u/s 10, same cannot be said to be taxed u/s 11 to 13. He has further contended that if the exemption is available to the assessee under two provisions of the Act, then the assessee is entitled to exemption under the provision which…

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

…ion set up with the object of promoting trade or commerce] is a charitable institution as it promotes common good through enhancement of business. [ Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry [1981] 130 ITR 186(SC); Bar Council of Maharashtra [1981] 130 ITR 28 (SC)]. (viii) However, an institution which merely regulates or enhances the business of its members is not a charitable institution. Thus, where the proprietors of hotels formed an association for obtaining articles on permit for supplying them to members and protecting their business interest, the association was held not to be a charitable one…

Asst CIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Jamshetjee Tata Trust, Mumbai

ITA 3807/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dilip J. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri-DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11aSection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 254(1)

…(227 ITR 317) (iii) Commissiner of Income Tax vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] (135 ITR 485 ) (iv) Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (143 ITR 584) (v) Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Bar Council of Maharashtra. (130 ITR 28) 9.4 The Ld. Senior Counsel referred the observations of these decisions and submitted that once the income is exempt u/s 10, same cannot be said to be taxed u/s 11 to 13. He has further contended that if the exemption is available to the assessee under two provisions of the Act, then the assessee is entitled to exemption under the provision whic…

Phd Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. Director of Income Tax - Exemptions

ITA/369/2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

…ax v. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club (1977) 110ITR 392; an association formed for the general benefit of the members of the legal profession was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax V. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1981) 130 ITR 28; a public utility undertaking such as a State Road Transport Corporation was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1. In all these cases the common tlrread which was noticed to run through was the absence of any motive of private profit. These d…

Phd Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. Director of Income Tax -Exemptions

ITA/368/2012HC Delhi19 Oct 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

…ax v. Ootacamund Gymkhana Club (1977) 110ITR 392; an association formed for the general benefit of the members of the legal profession was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax V. Bar Council of Maharashtra, (1981) 130 ITR 28; a public utility undertaking such as a State Road Transport Corporation was held eligible for the exemption by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 159 ITR 1. In all these cases the common tlrread which was noticed to run through was the absence of any motive of private profit. These d…