← 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)

Kgk Foundation, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 1105/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1104 & 1105/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear :- 2025-26 KGK Foundation E-44, Lal Bahadur Nagar, JLN Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur – 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम The CIT (Exemption) Vs. Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKCK 5948 C निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma,CA Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CA राजस्व की ओरसे /

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha,CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk

Kgk Foundation, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 1104/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1104 & 1105/JP/2025 U/S 12AB & 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear :- 2025-26 KGK Foundation E-44, Lal Bahadur Nagar, JLN Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur – 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The CIT (Exemption) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKCK 5948 C निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma,CA Shri Rajnikant Bhatra,CA राजस्व की ओरसे /

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha,CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR JhjkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk

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

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

ITA 1000/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

Bundelkhand University, Jhansi vs. DCIT(Exemption), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 310/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

Assessee had received only 2.39 percent of total receipts as grant from the Government and hence would not comply with the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab), (iiiac) and (iiiad) of the Act. The Learned AO observed that the Assessee had not filed its return of income for assessment year ... under section 139(1) of the Act which was mandatory for the Assessee trust or society to claim exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act. Accordingly the Learned AO proceeded to frame the assessment of the Assessee University as an Association of Persons (AOP). Even though there were certain

Iqra Education Society, Jalgaon vs. ACIT Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

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

ITA 309/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Iqra Education Society, Vs. Acit, Exemption Sagar Nagar Mehrun, Circle, Aurangabad. Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaati0900R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawadia (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Chandigarh [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 9,64,09,885/- Made By Cpc. Bengaluru By Disallowing The Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 While Processing Itr U/S 143(1) Of The Act Simply On The Technical Ground That Audit Report In Form 10B

For Appellant: Shri Vinay V. Kawadia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has not adjudicated on the alternate claim of the 5 assessee seeking exemption under the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and also the additional ground regarding the taxability of only net commercial income and not the gross receipts, raised ... assessee has not seriously pressed ground Nos. 1 and 2 relating to claim of exemption by the assessee u/s 11 and/or section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. In our considered view, the additional ground (ground No. 3) relating to taxability of only net commercial income being legal in nature

Kisan Seva Shikshan Sanstha, Bubnal vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward Kolhapur, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2802/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2802/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar MaliFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiab)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Om Charitable Chikitsa Samiti, Gwalior vs. CIT Appeals, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 250

assessment order, whereby the physically submitted audit report on Form 10B was not considered and the rectification request of assessee to substitute section 10(23C)(vi) as against wrong 3 | P a g e mention of section 10(23C)(iiiad) in the return for the claim of said deduction ... fact of case’ available on record that due to a clerical omission, deduction was claimed u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) instead of correct section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee society is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act, vide, registration No. 12AA/77/54/09-10/1153

ITO, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ideal Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad

ITA 4257/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Ideal Institute Of Technology Society, 46, 1St Floor, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad. Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaati3380F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.91/2013-14/Gzb Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 22.03.2013 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Jcit, Range-2, Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act & Is Running Engineering, Mba & Mca Colleges. The Return Was Filed Declaring Nil Income. However, The Ld. Ao Completed The Assessment At Rs.10,93,79,835/- By Making Four Principal Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

Income Tax Officer..E..1..2..Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Christ Church Byculla, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 11(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

funds and investments as on the last day of the previous year [to be filled if registered under section 12A/12AA or approved under section 10(23C)(iv)/10(23C)(v)/10(23)(xi)/10(23C)(via)/10(21)] 9. From the comparative analysis of both tables, as noted

Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Shikshan Sanstha, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT Exemption, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2688/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10Section 11Section 154Section 250

Assessing Officer further held that the funds of the trust are not being properly utilized / supervised as required by the provisions of section 10(23C) of the Act. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC allowed the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) made by the assessee, the reasons ... Assessing Officer that the funds of the assessee trust are not properly utilized, managed and supervised as required under the provisions of section 10(23C)(v) of the Act is concerned, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee

Madhav University, Pindwara, Sirohi vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 789/JODH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

Section 11Section 12ASection 3(2)Section 80Section 80G(5)

1 ITA No279 & 280/Jodh/2024 Madhav University IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA

Sant Baba Bodha Nanad Gaushalla Committee, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 257/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Sant Baba Bodha Nand Gaushalla The Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh, Committee/Aop (Trust) C/O-J. K. Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-17-E, Gupta, Advocate 4702, Hospital Vs Chandigarh-160017 Bazar, Bathinda, (Punjab)-151005 Pan-Aaits0667H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri J. K. Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. M.S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr

Section 10Section 5Section 80GSection 80G(5)

while considering the issue whether the Id. CIT (Exemption) has power to condone the delay in filing application for grant of approval under section 10(23C) or not, has considered the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P v. Harish Chandra ... read as under "15. However, considering the legal position that there is no power to condone the delay in filing an application under section 10(23C) of the Act, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone the delay. However, this Court is inclined to give

Durgapur Steel City Society for Education, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Exemption, Durgapur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

St Marys Education Society Aligarh, Aligarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 580/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ITA No.580/Del/2024 & 1667/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Saint Marys School, Mainpuri vs. ADIT, Exepmtion Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1667/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] St. Marys Education Vs Dcit (Exemption), Society, Our Lady Circle, Ghaziabad Fatima Secondary School, Ram Ghat Road, Aligarh, U.P-201002. Pan-Aaats4351G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr [Assessment Year : 2019-20] Saint Marys School, Vs Asst. Director Of Opp. Kotwali Mainpuri, Income Tax, Uttar Pradesh-205001. Exemption Circle, Pan-Aaets1727L Ghaziabad. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vikesh Bansal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.12.2023 & 31.03.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre & 1667/Del/2023 (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) By Cpc Dated 25.11.2019 & 26.05.2020 For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2019- 20 Respectively.

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ITA No.580/Del/2024 & 1667/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Bal Kalyan Samiti, Rewa vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Jabalpur

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

ITA 117/JAB/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bal Kalyan Samiti V. Ito Exemption Ward, Saraswati Puram Jail Marg, Jabalpur Dhobiya, Tanki Madhya Annexe Building, Aayakar Pradesh-486001. Bhawan, Napier Town Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh-482001. Tan/Pan:Aabtb3449F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 10

without considering the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not providing the benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiad). 3. That the learned CIT(A) did not verified that the deduction of Provident Fund was considered as gross receipt of society

Siddha Sakthi Arutjothi Kalvi Nilayam, Arialur, Ariyalur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trichy

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

ITA 3393/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3393/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siddha Sakthi Arutjothi Vallalar Kalvi Income Tax Officer, Nilayam, Vs. Exemption Ward, Lingathadimedu, Trichy. Ariyalur – 621 705. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aabts-1168-C] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. P.M Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

claiming NIL income. It also filed its audit report on the same day in Form 10BB, which is applicable to section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The assessee filed a revised ROI on 04.03.2019, again declaring NIL income. The AO, CPC issued a communication dated 04.12.2019 proposing disallowance

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

Companies Act, 2013, will not be eligible for deduction from the total income of the donor. The existing provisions of section 10(23C) of the Act provide for exemption from tax in respect of the income of certain charitable funds or institutions like the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund ... National Foundation for Communal Harmony. Considering the importance of Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund, it is also proposed to amend section 10(23C) of the Act so as to exempt the income of Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund from income-tax. These amendments will take effect

Udan Education Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 664/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

trust had commenced and no income or part thereof had been excluded from the total income on account of the applicability of Section 10(23C) (iv)(v)(vi) (via) or Section 11 or Section 12 of the Act for any year preceding the date of application. Ld. Counsel

Udan Education Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 663/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kunal Rathod, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

trust had commenced and no income or part thereof had been excluded from the total income on account of the applicability of Section 10(23C) (iv)(v)(vi) (via) or Section 11 or Section 12 of the Act for any year preceding the date of application. Ld. Counsel