“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)

Akshat Education and Charitable Trust, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 456/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.456/Ahd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : N.A Akshat Education & Charitable Trust, 5/35, Gosainu Faliyu Asodar, Borsad Road, Asodar, Anand-388307. (Gujarat) बनाम The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemption), Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta2211K अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(E)"] Dated 14.08.2024, Whereby The Assessee'S Application In Form No. 10Ab Seeking Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] Was Rejected By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 80G(5)(Iv)(B).

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

least one month prior to the commencement of the relevant previous year, or where no part of the income has been excluded under section 10(23C) or sections 11 or 12 for any earlier previous year ending on or before the date of such application ... section 11 to the tune of Rs.1,99,48,893. - For A.Y. 2023-24, the assessee filed ITR-7 and claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(via) amounting to Rs.2,26,63,350. 10. From the above, the Ld. CIT(E) held that the assessee had already claimed exemption/exclusion

Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Exemptions, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1187/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-10 Gujarat Technological University, The Dcit, Nr. Vishwakarma Govt. Engg. College, बनाम/ Circle-1, V/S. Near Visar Three Roads, Exemptions, Chandkheda Society Area S.O, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad-382424. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaalg1109L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 14.03.2025, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019–20, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

claimed exemption of Rs. 69,67,26,332/- under section 11 of the Act and Rs. 54,36,89,848/- under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. The said return was processed by CPC under section 143(1) on 03.06.2020, wherein the exemption claimed under section 11 was denied ... ground that details of registration under section 12A/12AA or approval under section 10(23C)(iv)/(v)/(vi)/(via) were not furnished; and the exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(iiiab) was denied for the reason that the institution was not considered as “substantially financed” by the Government. 4. Thereafter

Punjab Defence and Security Relief Fund, Chandigarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 238/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2024-25 Punjab Defence & Security The Cit बनाम Relief Fund, (Exemptions), Room No. 22, 2Nd Floor, Chandigarh Vs. Cm Office, Confidential Branch, Punjab Civil Secretariate, Chandigarh 160001 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaalp2265N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Virtual Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusam Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh For The Assessment Year 2024-25. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusam Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Vir Savarkar Swimmers Club, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1463/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1462 & 1463/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vir Savarkar Swimmers Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Club, Station Road, Baramati, Pune- 413102. Pan : Aaabv0933D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2019-20 & 2020-21 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1462/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2019-20 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

observe that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has not adjudicated on the alternate claim of the 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

Vir Savarkar Swimmers Club, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1462/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

State Institute of Chidrens Literature, Trivandrum vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Trivandrum

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

ITA 539/COCH/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 State Institue Of Childrens Literature .......... Appellant Sanskrit College Campus, Palayalam Thiruvananthapuram 695034 [Pan: Aajts9037Q] Vs. Ito, Ward - 1(3), Thiruvananthapuram .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Society Setup By The Government Of Kerala Formed With The Objective Of Promotion Of Education & Literature, Promote Reading Habits & Promote Affinity Towards Culture Among Children. No Return Of Income Was Filed By The Appellant Society For Ay 2019-20. Based On The Information Available In The It Portal That Interest Of Rs. 21,37,898/- Was Received By The Appellant, The Ito, Ward-1(3)

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2019-20 State Institue

Samadarshan Trust, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 367/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

whether the assessee / applicant trust had claimed exemption under section 11 or section 12 or sub-clauses (iv), (v), (vi), or (via) of section 10(23C) at any time after the commencement of its activities. This query was made in view of the provision that under section

Friends Education Society Kaij, Beed vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 1130/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: HeardITAT Pune08 Aug 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1130/Pun/2025 Friends Education Society Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Kaij, Shikshak Colony, Beed Road, Kaij, Beed- 431517. Pan : Aaaaf3434G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The It Act. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are, That The Assessee Filed Its Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Sub-Clause (B) Of (Iv) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act On 30.10.2024. With A View To Verify The Genuineness Of Activities Of The Assessee & Fulfilment Of Conditions Laid Down In Clause (I) To (V) Of Section 80G(5) Of The It Act, A Notice Was Issued

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

that the application for registration u/s 80G(5) was rejected on following two reasons :- (i) The assessee is not registered u/s 12AB or section 10(23C) of the IT Act. (ii) The assessee has not produced the complete details of donations received in building funds. 4. With regard to above ... providing education and does not exist for earning profit and its receipts are less than Rs.5 crores, therefore in the light of section 10(23C) sub-section (iiiad) of the IT Act the income of the assessee is exempted & assessee is not required to get any registration under section 10

Purvi Sewa Samiti, Faridabad vs. CIT Exmption, Faridabad

Appeals are disposed of by setting aside the issues to the file of the Ld

ITA 1834/DEL/2025[2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Umesh Sinha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 80G

whereby and whereunder in the absence of requisite submissions made by the applicant in support of the application in Form No. 10AB under Section 10(23C) (iv)(B) of the Act has been rejected. Further that, consequently the approval under Section 80G also stood rejected ... before the Ld. CIT(E) and therefore, prayed for further opportunity to place the claim of approval as per application for approval under Section 10(23C) (iv)(B) of the Act effectively before the Ld. CIT(E) and also the claim for approval under Section 80G of the Act. Such

Purvi Sewa Samiti, Faridabad vs. CIT Exmptions, Faridabad

Appeals are disposed of by setting aside the issues to the file of the Ld

ITA 1833/DEL/2025[2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Umesh Sinha, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 80G

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE

The Jorhat Institute of Science and Technology, Jorhat vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Exem, Guwahati

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 211/GTY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Section 10Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 148Section 250

same in response to a notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In the return so filed, the assessee claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab), being a government funded educational institution. The Ld. AO denied the exemption solely on the ground that the return was not filed under ... Technology into 56 pages, through which it was attempted to be demonstrated that the assessee was squarely covered under the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and hence was not exigible to any tax. It was also averred that there was an oversight in filling

Ap Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.298/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessme298Nt Year: 2021-22) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Vs. Dy. Cit Control Board, (Exemption Circle) Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan:Aaaja1610Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 11/03/2025 Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 10(46)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee has accumulated a sum of Rs.74,38,61,538/- within the meaning of 3rd proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act. However, out of the said accumulated amount of Rs.74.38 crores, a sum of Rs.70.51 crores was utilized till the end of the financial year ... liability of tax on un-utilized accumulated income does not arise. He has further submitted that even prior to the amendment in section 10(23C)(v), there was no such condition of utilization of the accumulated income within a period of 5 years Page

Prime Rose City School Samiti, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 280/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 270ASection 68

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) the assessee being duly registered educational institution. existing solely for educational purposes and not for profit, with receipts below Rs. 1 crore ... income from other sources, despite the fact that the assessee's receipts were exclusively from educational activities and qualified for exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad). 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition

M/S. Innovative Micrfinance for Poverty Alleviation & Community Transformation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1161/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1161/Chny/2025

Section 11Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Jalna Maheshwari Charitable Foundation, Jalna vs. CIT Exemptions, Pune

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

ITA 318/PUN/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.318/Pun/2025 Jalna Maheshwari Charitable Vs. Cit, Exemption, Pune. Foundation, H.No.1-29-11203, A-60, Pritisudha Nagar, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aafcj6375D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Darshan Gattani (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit, Exemption, Pune Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 80G Of The It Act. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are, That The Assessee Filed Its Application For Registration In Form No.10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Sub-Section (5) Of Section 80G Of The It Act On 21.06.2024. With A View To Verify The Genuineness Of Activities Of The Assessee & Fulfilment Of Conditions Laid Down In Clauses (I) To (V) Of Section 80G(5) Of The It Act, Notices Were Issued Through

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Gattani (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

regular registration u/s 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(i) / 12A(1)(ac)(iii) nor any copy of 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

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions Cirlce-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 171/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

government organisations can be characterized as GPU charities. It goes without saying that the other conditions imposed by the seventh proviso to Section 10(23C) and by Section 11 have to necessarily be fulfilled. (v) As a consequence, it is necessary in each case, having regard to the first proviso ... seventeenth proviso (the latter introduced in 2012, w.r.e.f 01.04.2009) to Section 10(23C), that the authority considering granting exemption, takes into account the objects of the enactment or instrument concerned, its underlying policy, and the nature of the functions, and activities, of the entity claiming to be a GPU charity

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions Cirlce-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 170/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions Cirlce-1, Bengaluru

ITA 169/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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