← All Phrases

“section 10(23C)”

DeductionsSection 10(23C)Section 10(23C)1,207 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 10(23C) is CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (43 Taxmann.com 411), cited in 524 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 10(23C)

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne
146 ITR 28 · 1984 · High Court
195
citing judgments

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court
191
citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

CIT v. Kasturi & Sons Ltd.
3 SCC 346 · 1999 · Supreme Court
153
citing judgments

Fiscal statutes must be construed strictly and literally. When the language is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to it without considering legislative intent or equitable considerations.

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.

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT
82 ITR 570 · 1971 · Supreme Court
131
citing judgments

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

Judgments citing section 10(23C)

Society for Creation of Opportunities Through Proficiency in English (Scope), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 387/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer CPC, raised a tax demand of ₹6,51,13,960/- by disallowing the exemption claimed under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) for A.Y. 2012–13. The cause for this disallowance was the assessee's failure to file ... erroneously filed its return in Form ITR-5 instead of Form ITR-7, which is the prescribed form for entities claiming exemption under Section 10(23C) of the Act. In the return filed by the assessee on 31.03.2013, he declared total income as NIL after claiming exemption

Sree Vishwabharathi Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Benglauru, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 859/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.H Nagaraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 69C

style of M/s Sri Sharda Nursing College. For the relevant assessment year, the assessee was neither registered under section 12AA/12AB nor under section 10(23C) of the Act. 4. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30th August 2018 in ITR-7. It disclosed ... being the amount claimed as application towards the objects. The reasons given were that the assessee was not registered under section 12A/12AA or section 10(23C) of the Act, and that the audit report in Form 10B was not filed with the return of income. 6. Subsequently, the case

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1 Thane, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant exemption to the appellant under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income tax Act as the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution of the appellant did not exceed INR 1 crore

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions), Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant exemption to the appellant under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income tax Act as the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution of the appellant did not exceed INR 1 crore

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant exemption to the appellant under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income tax Act as the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution of the appellant did not exceed INR 1 crore

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in not directing the assessing officer to grant exemption to the appellant under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income tax Act as the aggregate annual receipts of each educational institution of the appellant did not exceed INR 1 crore

Deepa Education Society, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Amravati

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

ITA 80/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

return of income and therefore he asked the Assessee as to whether the Assessee has got any approval under the provision of section 10(23C) of the Act. 4. The Assessee, in response to the query, replied that it is an educational institution, whose gross receipt is less than Rs.1 ... under: “4.2 Thus. By virtue of section 139(4C) every educational institution referred to in sub-clause (wad) or sub-clause (vi) of Section 10(23C) whose total income, without giving effect to the provisions of section 10, exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 01.04.2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions.” (xi) that when

DCIT2(2)1, Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai vs. Rajendra G Parikh, Oriental Business Centre, Rajbahadur Mansion

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4370/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Rajendra G. Parikh, Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Room No. बनाम Mumbai G.P.O., Mumbai 544, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. - 400 000, Maharashtra Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpp4545K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talathi, (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

Where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A/ 12AA/12AB of the Act, order passed u/s 263 of the Act etc. The reference to cases involving sections referred here, where it is not possible

DCIT 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajendra G Parikh, Maharastra

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4328/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of Income V/S. Rajendra G. Parikh, 1St Tax, Circle – 2(2)(1), Room No. बनाम Floor, Yogesh Bhawan, 31, 544, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. N.S. Parkar Road, Mumbai Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 007, Maharashtra 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacpp4545K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talathi, (Virtually Present)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

Where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A/ 12AA/12AB of the Act, order passed u/s 263 of the Act etc. The reference to cases involving sections referred here, where it is not possible

Shri Sanatan Dharma Panchayat High School Mandawa, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1476/KOL/2025[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2026-2027

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2026-27 Shri Sanatan Dharma Panchayat High School Mandawa….….……….……Appellant Block-A-11, 4Th Floor, 234/3A Ajc Bose Road, Kol - 700020. [Pan: Aaets8043F] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kadel, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

dated 31-3-2022, extended time limit with respect to both existing trusts and new trusts for registrations under sections 10(23C), 12A and 80G(5) - However, CBDT, while extending time limit further vide impugned Clause 5 (ii) of Circular No. 6 of 2023, dated

The Sai Man Education Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3271/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 68

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, The Sai Man Education Society is a registered trust under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. engaged in managing educational activities. During the assessment year 2017-18 the assessee received a voluntary corpus donation

Rudraksh Professional Education Trust, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 278/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12A

expiry of the provisional registration period. (iil) All the existing trusts or institutions which were registered under section 124/12AA or approved under section 10(23C) and section 80G are mandatorily required to obtain registration under new scheme of registration under section 12AB or to obtain approval under section 10(23C

M P Birla Foundation Educational Society, Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 989/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

holding that the CPC/Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that in Serial No. 8 and 9 of Form of Return (ITR) though Section 10(23C) was mentioned but Clause (vi) was not mentioned anywhere and because of absence of specific clause mentioned in Part B-TI for taking exemption, the appellant ... correct entry, even then it was incumbent upon CPC/Assessing Officer to process the return by giving the appellant the benefit of Exemption of Section 10(23C)(vi), as the appellant had duly provided details of the said Exemption in Part A of the return. 6. That on the facts

Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 247 & 248/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Alternative For India The Commissioner Of Development, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Chennai. Iyyappanthangal, Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

248/Chny/2025 a commercial activity, subject however, to the conditions stipulated under section 11(4A) or the seventh provision to section 10(23C)” It is observed that the applicant trust has failed to furnish any details with documentary evidences to justify that the trust has applied income towards “Relief of Poor

Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. Commission of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 247 & 248/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Alternative For India The Commissioner Of Development, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Chennai. Iyyappanthangal, Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

248/Chny/2025 a commercial activity, subject however, to the conditions stipulated under section 11(4A) or the seventh provision to section 10(23C)” It is observed that the applicant trust has failed to furnish any details with documentary evidences to justify that the trust has applied income towards “Relief of Poor

The Dhulia Charitable Society, Dhule vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 281/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

assessee is neither regularly registered u/s.12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(i) /12A(1)(ac)(iii) nor having regular approval under section 10(23C) read with clause (i) / (iii) of first proviso to the said section and the case is not covered under the exclusions provided vide proviso

The Dhulia Charitable Society, Dhule vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Aurangabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

assessee is neither regularly registered u/s.12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(i) /12A(1)(ac)(iii) nor having regular approval under section 10(23C) read with clause (i) / (iii) of first proviso to the said section and the case is not covered under the exclusions provided vide proviso

Positive Yuva Network Association, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Prantiya Sewa Bharati Samiti Chittore, Kota vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 470/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Jain, Advocate (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh