“Section 10(15)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(15)157 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(15) is Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1), cited in 328 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(15)

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court

328

citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court

270

citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.

233 ITR 468 · 1998 · Supreme Court

246

citing judgments

Expenditure providing an enduring advantage, such as upfront lease rent for land, is revenue expenditure if no capital asset is acquired or generated, allowing for deduction under Section 37, even when capitalized in the books of account.

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT

372 ITR 699 · 2015 · Supreme Court

152

citing judgments

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)

371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court

128

citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

10 SCC 304 · 1996 · Reported

123

citing judgments

A 'trade' is primarily defined as the exchange of goods for goods or money, and secondarily as a business carried on with a view to profit. The term 'business' is more comprehensive than 'trade', encompassing manufacturing activities.

American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT

301 ITR 86 · 2008 · Supreme Court

111

citing judgments

An educational institution is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if it exists solely for educational purposes, even if it generates incidental profits. The mere existence of profit does not disqualify an institution from exemption.

(State of T.N v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras

4 SCC 630 · 1989 · Reported

108

citing judgments

An activity, even if it involves sales, does not constitute "business" for tax purposes if it is an incidental part of the main activities of a public utility entity and lacks a profit motive. The presence of a profit motive is generally essential to classify an activity as business.

Judgments citing Section 10(15)

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 36(1)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT, Lucknow

ITA 113/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 112/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4247/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

10. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) that provision of not non obstante sections 10(15), 10(34) and 10(23AAB) are applicable to the case despite operation of non-obstante section 44 whereas section 14A which is anon obstante ... assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, we find that the AO also denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(15) of the Act on the similar basis on which the exemption claimed under section 10(34) and section 10(23AAB) of the Act was denied

Dy. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4208/MUM/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Income Tax Department, DCIT vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4185/MUM/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

10. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) that provision of not non obstante Sections 10(15), 10(34) and 10(23AAB) are applicable to the case despite operation of non-obstante Section 44 whereas Section 14A which is anon obstante ... assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, we find that the AO also denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 10(15) of the Act on the similar basis on which the exemption claimed under Section 10(34) and Section 10(23AAB) of the Act was denied

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1428/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

10. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) that provision of not non obstante sections 10(15), 10(34) and 10(23AAB) are applicable to the case despite operation of non-obstante section 44 whereas section 14A which is anon obstante ... assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, we find that the AO also denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 10(15) of the Act on the similar basis on which the exemption claimed under Section 10(34) and Section 10(23AAB) of the Act was denied

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1427/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

10. Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the decision of Ld. CIT(A) that provision of not non obstante sections 10(15), 10(34) and 10(23AAB) are applicable to the case despite operation of non-obstante section 44 whereas section 14A which is anon obstante ... assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, we find that the AO also denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 10(15) of the Act on the similar basis on which the exemption claimed under Section 10(34) and Section 10(23AAB) of the Act was denied

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1392/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

Assessing Officer ought not to tax the MTM gains amounting to ₹2504,00,00,000. 3. Re: Expenses apportioned against income exempted under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35)-Disallowance u/s.14A: ₹629,05,90,585 [Para 5, Pages 59 to 67 of the CIT(A) order ... erred in confirming the apportionment of expenses amounting to 629,05,90,585 to the income exempt under section 10(15), 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act on the basis of on the basis of Rule 8D laid down by the CBDT vide notification no.45/2008 dated March

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4159/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh

Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

form of exempt long term capital gain under section 10(38), dividend from mutual fund under section 10(34) and exempt interest under section 10(15) and 10(11), amounting in total to Rs.1,55,94,309/-.She held that there were certain hidden charges in the form of processing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, C. R Building vs. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., Asaf Ali

In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3218/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmanacit, Circle 10 (1), Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi. A-25/27, Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaact0927R) Co No.152/Del/2023 (In Ita No.3218/Del/2023) (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Circle 10 (1), A-25/27, Oriental House, New Delhi. Asaf Ali Road, Delhi Gate, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan : Aaact0927R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act (c) Dividend amounting to INR.33,01,42,731/- claimed to be exempt under Section 10(15) of the Act 6. 3. In the computation of income the Assessee did not make any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. In response

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act (c) Dividend amounting to INR.33,01,42,731/- claimed to be exempt under Section 10(15) of the Act 6.3. In the computation of income the Assessee did not make any disallowance under Section 14A of the Act. In response

DCIT-CC-5(3), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the revenue's appeals ITA No

ITA 3845/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

DCIT-CC5(3), Mumbai vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals ITA No

ITA 3841/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI BR BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2980/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate a

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd ( Merged Entity Hdfc Investments Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2979/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 1

HDFC Bank Ltd. ITA No.4315/MUM/2007 and Ors. AYs 2002-03 to 2020-21 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E