“Section 10(22)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(22)94 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(22) is Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (5 SCC 482), cited in 261 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(22)

Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44); Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT

5 SCC 482 · 1997 · Supreme Court

261

citing judgments

For income to be assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, beneficial ownership or the right to enjoy the property is sufficient; legal ownership is not a mandatory prerequisite.

CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.

354 ITR 180 · 2013 · High Court

208

citing judgments

Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold stock-in-trade flats/shops held by a real estate developer can be assessed under Section 22 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as income from house property. This approach was followed by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on this decision.

P.V. Doshi v. CIT

113 ITR 22 · 1978 · High Court

179

citing judgments

The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT

244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court

168

citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Pradip Kumar Malhotra v. CIT

338 ITR 538 · 2011 · High Court

152

citing judgments

Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, which addresses deemed dividends, does not apply to loans or advances provided by a company to its shareholders if these transactions occur in the normal course of business, are driven by business expediency, or are made in consideration of a benefit conferred upon the company by the shareholder. Conversely, gratuitous loans or advances given to shareholders fall within the purview of this section.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT

42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court

147

citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

Jamshedpur Motor Accessories Stores v. CIT

72 ITR 612 · 1969 · Supreme Court

140

citing judgments

The reasonableness of an expenditure for business purposes must be assessed from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's, and the primary motive to earn income directly is not a prerequisite for its admissibility as a deduction.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO

315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court

112

citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

Judgments citing Section 10(22)

Marri Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 863/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

relevant portion of order is extracted below. “The intention of the Legislature appears to be to grant exemption to the institution, under section 10(22) if it solely exists for educational purposes and not for the purposes of profit. [Para 10] The legal position is well established on the strength ... educational purposes and it runs an educational institution, its income will be the income of the educational institution and, therefore, exempted under section 10(22 ). The fact that the assessee had other objects will not disentitle it to the exemption so long as the activity carried

Marri Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 862/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar Reddy, C.A

Section 12A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 861/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 860/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

M.G.R.Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 859/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Section 12A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल

M.G.R.Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 858/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar Reddy, C.A

Section 12A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hydarabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Tonk vs. Circle(Exemp.), Jaipur

In the result ITA No. 1094/JPR/2024 (A

ITA 1095/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

fact is established, he is entitled to exclude the income from such institution under section 10. However, as intention of the deletion of section 10(22) and introduction of provisions of section 10(23C) was to compel such institutions to come under a discipline, the stress

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Tonk vs. Circle(Exemp.), Jaipur

In the result ITA No. 1094/JPR/2024 (A

ITA 1094/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4666/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 250

income accrued therefrom. 18. In Aditanar Educational Institution (supra), Supreme Court was considering exemption granted to an educational institution under section 10(22) of the Act. As per section 10(22) of the Act, any income of an university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes

Shri Pancmurti Education Society, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-4(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 488/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Adiba H. ChimthanawalaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 11Section 12ASection 50A

seizure operation and after thorough scrutiny of books of accounts and its working, the assessee was granted exemption under erstwhile provision under section 10(22) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“the Act”) and the same is placed on record. The assessee applied for the registration under section 12AA

Netenrich Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 870/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member), SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 12A

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

Institute Etc. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 224 ITR 310 (SC), the Supreme Court has observed, while construing the provisions of Section 10(22) that the decisive or acid test is whether on an overall view of the matter the object is to make a profit. If after

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1265/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

City As Lab Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2025/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 8(1)

supra) it is held by the Division Bench of this Court that mere existence of profit will not disqualify institution for exemption under section 10(22) of the Act, if sole purpose of its existence is not profit making but is educational activities. In the said decision the Division Bench ... observations made by the Supreme Court in Loka Shikshana Trust's (supra) for holding that, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under section 10(22) of the Act is based on a complete misreading of the observations of the Supreme Court. In Loka Shikshana Trust's (supra) the Supreme

City As Lab Fondation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2023/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 8(1)

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Tonk vs. Circle(Exemp.), Jaipur

ITA 895/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 06.12.2018. Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer. By Way Of Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer (Exemption Circle), Jaipur Computed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “7. Subject To Above, The Total Income In This Case Is Computed As Under:- Gross Receipts As Per Income & Expenditure A/C Rs. 8,20,85,351/- Less: Revenue Expenditure As Per Income & Expenditure Account Rs. 6,28,43,345/- Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Total Income Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Rs. 1,92,42,010/-“ Rounded Off

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

Indian Institution of Banking and Finance, 408 ITR 558, it was observed that merely because an assessee has been denied exemption under sections 10(22), (23) or (23C), it will not mean that he must be denied exemption under section 11 of the Act as well. 12. Picking

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डॉ. एस.सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Sri Govinddeo Educational Institute, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption) Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 718/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

same is reproduced as under: "The Finance (No.-2) Act, 1998 introduced section 10(23C) w.e.f.01.04.1999, which is similar to the erstwhile section 10(22) of the Act. This exemption is available to any University or educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit ... assessment years 1985-86, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and exempt under section 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961. Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is the successor to the Erstwhile section 10(22). The AO in these assessment years have considered our claim that

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Theosophical Society, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 624/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 624/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer The Theosophical Society, (Exemptions), V. 1, Adyar, Ward -4, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatt-0479-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 143(3)

case of Seethakathi Trust [2007] 295 ITR 520 (Madras), the Assessing Officer denied the exemption under section 10(22) of the Act and also denied the benefits of sections 11 and 12 of the Act holding that the assessee violated the provisions of section 11(5) read with section ... ITAT dismissed revenue appeal stating that as the assessee is entitled to exemption under sections 10(22), 10(22A) and 10(23C) of the Act and in which case, it is not necessary to pass an order in respect of the alternative plea of the assessee-trust in regard

Sri Govinddeo Educational Institute, Kolkata vs. Dy.DIT(E)-1, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Govinddeo Educational Ddit, Exemption Circle-1, Institute Kolkata Vs. 78, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata-700019. (Pan: Aabts6053J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

exempt u/s. 10(22) of the Act. Section 10(23C)(iiiad) is the successor to the erstwhile section 10(22) of the Act. In the aforesaid assessment years, the Ld. AO has considered the claim of the assessee of it running educational institutions and has allowed the claim made