← All Phrases

“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)

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

First Schedule. The assessee in that case which carried on life insurance business had made a claim to exemption under section 10(15) and section 19(1). In a reference before the Court, the questions referred included whether in computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance under

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1716/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

First Schedule. The assessee in that case which carried on life insurance business had made a claim to exemption under section 10(15) and section 19(1). In a reference before the Court, the questions referred included whether in computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance under

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1715/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

First Schedule. The assessee in that case which carried on life insurance business had made a claim to exemption under section 10(15) and section 19(1). In a reference before the Court, the questions referred included whether in computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance under

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed interest income of ₹.4,43,41,446, received on tax free bonds as exempt under section 10(15)(iv) of the Act. He further found that the assessee has paid interest amounting to ₹.352.98 crore. Whereas, the total interest income earned ... Regarding Question 2 – The Tribunal records in the impugned order that the Revenue has before it accepted the position that the exemption under Section 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act is to be allowed on gross basis and not on net basis. Inspite of having accepted that exemption under

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1445 & 1446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Breach Candy Swimming Dcit Cc– 5(3), बिधम/ Bath Trust R. No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-40 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatb0133F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. AR
Section 10(15)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

from tax free bonds which is otherwise not 9 I.T.A. No. 1445 & 1446/Mum/2022 Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust taxable in view of section 10(15)(iv). Since the entire matter has been restored back to the file of AO in assessee’s appeal by this Tribunal in ITA No. 2469/Mum/21

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 4951/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

No.4951/M/2013) A.Y. 2005-06 13. The AO made disallowance of Rs.46,35,85,591/- claimed by the assessee for earning exempt income under section 10(15)(iv)(c&f), section 10(15)(iv)(h), 10(23G) by invoking the provisions contained under section 14A of the Act read with rule

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 3685/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. State Bank Of India, Dcit, Financial Reporting & Circle -2(2), Taxation Dept., Mumbai 3Rd Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Office Of The Dcit-2(2), M/S. State Bank Of India, R.No.545, Central Office, Aayakar Bhavan, Accounts & Compliance M.K. Road, Dept., Vs. 14Th Floor, Mumbai- 400 020 Madam Cama Rd., Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 14Section 14ASection 36Section 41(4)

No.4951/M/2013) A.Y. 2005-06 13. The AO made disallowance of Rs.46,35,85,591/- claimed by the assessee for earning exempt income under section 10(15)(iv)(c&f), section 10(15)(iv)(h), 10(23G) by invoking the provisions contained under section 14A of the Act read with rule

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 2469/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah &
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 7155/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B

Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Circle-12(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 5460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 528/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT(DR)
Section 801ASection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice President Dr. B

ADIT, Intl. Taxation Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Standard Charterd Grindlays Bank Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2382/DEL/2006[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2000-01
Section 115ASection 115A(3)Section 250Section 44C

disallowance of expenses to the Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd. vs. DDIT tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- in terms of provisions of section 10(15)(iv) of the Act. The assessee has claimed exempt income aggregating to Rs. 3,22,21,592/0 u/s 10(15)(iv) of the Act being

ADIT, Intl. Taxation Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Standard Charterd Grindlays Bank Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2381/DEL/2006[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 1999-00
Section 115ASection 115A(3)Section 250Section 44C

disallowance of expenses to the Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd. vs. DDIT tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- in terms of provisions of section 10(15)(iv) of the Act. The assessee has claimed exempt income aggregating to Rs. 3,22,21,592/0 u/s 10(15)(iv) of the Act being

Standard Chartered Bank vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2239/DEL/2006[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2000-2001
Section 115ASection 115A(3)Section 250Section 44C

disallowance of expenses to the Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd. vs. DDIT tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- in terms of provisions of section 10(15)(iv) of the Act. The assessee has claimed exempt income aggregating to Rs. 3,22,21,592/0 u/s 10(15)(iv) of the Act being

Standard Chartered Bank vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 2238/DEL/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 1999-2000
Section 115ASection 115A(3)Section 250Section 44C

disallowance of expenses to the Standard Chartered Grindlays Ltd. vs. DDIT tune of Rs. 35,00,000/- in terms of provisions of section 10(15)(iv) of the Act. The assessee has claimed exempt income aggregating to Rs. 3,22,21,592/0 u/s 10(15)(iv) of the Act being

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi- II vs. M/S Kohinoor Impex P. Ltd

ITA - 179 / 2001HC Delhi28 Aug 2014
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 80HSection 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(v)Section 95

However, the Supreme Court did not examine the issue on merits in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act applicable to ship breaking industry, to the effect that usance interest 2014:DHC:4226-DB ITA 179/2001 Page 5 of 8 payable outside India ... interest, then another aspect which required examination was whether the amount would be covered and exempt from payment of tax under Section 10(15)(iv)(c) of the Act, in which case tax at source was not required to be deducted. 8. Revenue is the appellant before

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cargill Global Trading Pvt Ltd

ITA - 331 / 2011HC Delhi17 Feb 2011
Section 195Section 2Section 37(1)Section 40

undertaking engaged in the business of ship breaking is exempt from payment of income-tax by virtue of Expln. 2 added to Section 10(15)(iv)(c) with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1962 and hence the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source under Section