“Section 10(23)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(23)103 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(23) is CIT v. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (354 ITR 180), cited in 208 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(23)

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.

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra

130 ITR 28 · 1981 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

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.

Vivek Jain v. ACIT

337 ITR 74 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

If a property is not let out at all, notional income must be computed, and the benefit of section 23(1)(c) (vacancy allowance) cannot be extended. However, section 23(1)(c) can apply to properties let out for two or more years that remain vacant for the entire previous year.

Sole Trustee, Lok Shikshana Trust v. Cit, Mysore

1 SCC 254 · 1976 · Reported

citing judgments

A trust's charitable character is not lost if its activities generate profits, as long as those profits are obligated to be spent exclusively or essentially on charitable purposes. The genuineness of the charitable purpose, as demonstrated by the obligation to spend the funds, is the key test.

CIT v. Anderson Marine & Sons (P.) Ltd.

266 ITR 694 · 2004 · High Court

citing judgments

Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be exercised beyond a period of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. This applies to orders passed under section 143(1) and issues not considered during reassessment proceedings under section 143(3)/147.

GTC Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

60 TTJ 308 · 1998 · ITAT

citing judgments

Denying an opportunity to cross-examine third parties does not amount to a violation of natural justice if their statements and reports are only secondary or subordinate material used to support the main addition.

ITO v. Serum Institute of India Research Foundation

169 ITD 271 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

Corpus donations are capital receipts and are not taxable, even if the trust is not registered under section 12A/12AA of the Income-tax Act.

Director of Enforcement v. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd.

2 SCC 471 · 1996 · Reported

citing judgments

Mens rea is not an essential element for imposing a penalty for the breach of a civil obligation. The levy of penalty attaches if the provisions of law are contravened, regardless of the defaulter's guilty intention.

Judgments citing Section 10(23)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 3077/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)

Section 2(15) for receipts from such profits, is adhered to. 172. Yet another manner of looking at the definition together with Sections 10(23) and 11 is that for achieving a general public utility object, if the charity involves itself in activities, that entail charging amounts only at cost

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 3076/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)

ACIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad, Telangana vs. Ch Venugopal Reddy Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed and CO is allowed

ITA 749/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.749/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ch.Venugopal Reddy Tax Vs. Educational Society Circle-1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaaac5072H] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent Cross Objection No.14/H/2024 (Arising Out Of आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.749/Hyd/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2018-19) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ch.Venugopal Reddy Educational Society Tax Hyderabad Circle-1(1) [Pan : Aaaac5072H] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

side. In Annadaneshwara Charitable Trust (supra) and Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple (supra), it is held that once the assessee has no registration under section 10(23) of the Act, then the income of the assessee is required to be computed under normal provisions of the Act as AOP and, therefore

Subhash E. Dhargave, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Funds, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 10Section 10(35)

holding more than 15% paid-up equity capital of Venture Capital Undertaking. Thus, the provisions of contained in Explanation (b)(A)(LI) to Section 10(23) of the Act are not attracted in the facts of the present case. (b) The investments made by the Assessee in domestic companies

Bhagwati Education Society, Sirsa vs. Income Tax Officer, Sirsa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 429/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kartik Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 10(23)(iiid)Section 143(2)Section 144

their net surplus amounting INR 3,47,180/- under the head of income from other sources wherein the whole income is exempt under section 10(23)(iiid). This is the case of the clerical mistake as the appellant neither have any intention to declare under wrong head nor have intention

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Mahindra International School Academy, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 980/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)

1 ITA.No.980/PUN./2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE

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)

Children’s Education Society, 358 ITR 373. Can an institution, not registered under sec. 12 AA, be denied exemption under section 10(23) ? 10. Answer is “No”. Exemption prescribed under section 10(23C) of the Act cannot be denied on the ground that the institution is not registered under section

ACIT 23-1, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M

Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

holding more than 15% paid-up equity capital of Venture Capital Undertaking. Thus, the provisions of contained in Explanation (b)(A)(II) to Section 10(23) of the Act are not attracted in the facts of the present case. (b) The investments made by the Assessee in domestic companies

ACIT-231, Mumbai vs. Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 368/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Shri H.M

Section 1Section 10Section 115USection 143(3)Section 147

Sonopant Dandekar Shikshan Mandali, Palghar vs. CIT Exemption Pune, Pune

Appeal is dismissed, with liberty to the Assessee as

ITA 3560/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 10(23)Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH

New English School Kelvani Trust, Nadiad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10(23)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80A

action of the Assessing Officer, CPC is correct in not allowing the deduction in respect of expenses incurred against the income referred to Section 10(23) of the Act. The Ld. DR specifically pointed out paragraph no.5.6 of the order of the CIT(A) thereby stating that neither the assessee ... circumstances, CPC was not correct in disallowing the exemption Assessment Year: 2018-19 Page 4 of 4 and the expenses claimed under Section 10(23) of the Act. As the return and Form 10B was filed within the extended time limit, the adjustment as made by the CPC while processing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1202/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1150/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

M/S Innovtive Microfinance for Poverty Alleviation, Chennai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Chennai Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 164/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)