“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)

Chimanlal Modi Charitable Trust, Mehsana vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2520/AHD/2025[NOT APPLICABLE]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2026

Bench: Six Months From The Date Of Commencement Of The Activities, Which Was Further Extended By Cbdt Circular No. 7 Of 2024 Up To 30-06- 2024 But The Assessee Trust Had Not Filed Any Reason For Delay In Filing Such Application. Therefore Ld. Cit(E) Denied The Registration By Observing That The Application Is Filed Belatedly.

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

registration became inoperative under Section Before expiry of the approved 10A Provisional/Fresh (via) 11(7) (due to 10(23C) approval) and period under Section 10(23C) or registration now applies again under Section immediately thereafter 12A 6.3. As per clause (iii) of section

Vyasa Vidya Mandiram, Coimbatore vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1287/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026

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

Court in the case of New Noble was the correct meaning of the term "solely" in the context of educational institutions seeking exemption section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court (in the case of New Noble) which was in the context of section ... Trust v. ACIT(E). It was further submitted that the decision in New Noble Educational Society (supra) was rendered in the context of section 10(23C)(vi) and interpretation of the word “solely” and therefore cannot be mechanically applied to registration u/s. 12AB. The Id.AR for the assessee further submitted

Vyasa Vidya Mandiram, Coimbatore vs. CIT, Exemptiions, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 1286/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

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

Court in the case of New Noble was the correct meaning of the term "solely" in the context of educational institutions seeking exemption section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Supreme Court (in the case of New Noble) which was in the context of section ... Noble Educational Society ITA 1286 & 1287 Chny 2025 Vyasa Vidya Mandiram Vs CIT E Chennai (supra) was rendered in the context of section 10(23C)(vi) and interpretation of the word “solely” and therefore cannot be mechanically applied to registration u/s. 12AB. The Id.AR for the assessee further submitted that

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

erred in holding that the assessee is "wholly or substantially financed by the Government within the meaning of section 10(23C)(iiiab), by considering non-recurring elements such as capital grants, land, and infrastructure, which are neither recurring nor reflected in the Income & Expenditure Account." 2. "On the facts ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that the term "substantially financed by the Government" under section 10(23C)(iiiab) can be interpreted to include capital grants and non-cash government assistance, in absence of any statutory threshold or specific quantitative test prescribed under

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5389/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5388/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5387/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5386/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5385/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

St. Josephs Education Trust Vijapur, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 445/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ld. Cit(A).

Section 10Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

Page 1 of 34 ITA Nos. 354 & 355/Bang/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM

Dayanand Anglo Vedik Higher Secondry School Prabandh Karini Sabha, Jhabrera Roorkee vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(4), Roorkee

Appeal is allowed

ITA 212/DDN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant

The Institute of the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary Society No.14 (AOP), Nilgiris vs. ITO, Exemtions, Coimbatore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3660/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Murali, C.A ()For Respondent: Dr. M.D.Vijay Kumar, JCIT

Section 10Section 12ASection 250Section 270ASection 274

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए

Shree Jain Swetamber Terapanthi Manav Hitkari Sangh, Pali vs. ITO, Ward, Exemption, Jodhpur

In the result this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JODH/2024[2024-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2024-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleshree Jain Swetamber Terapanthi Ddit, Cpc, Manav Hitkari Sangh Bangaluru C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sadarpura, Jodhpur Pan No. Aaabs2490J Assessee By Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02 .2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Prayagraj [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 03.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Assessed Income Of Rs. 32,61,973/- Without Considering Merits Of The Case.

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 250

record, we find that the Central Processing Centre ( in short CPC) has denied the Assessee the benefit of exemption under Section 11 and Section 10(23C)(III ad) as the appellant has marked ‘NO’ for these options while filling in the return of income. However, the appellant assessee has claimed ... that it has indicated in the return income that it is liable for Audit under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act where the amount eligible for exemption under the aforesaid Section 10(23C)(vi) is shown as zero. 3. Accordingly, pointing out aforesaid discrepancies, the learned JCIT

School Managing Society Capt. Gurcharan Singh, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward ( Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 562 & 563/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 & 2024-25 School Managing Society Capt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Gurcharan Singh Kapurthala, Ito (E) Ward, Jalandhar. Punjab. [Pan:-Aadts4577P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Y.K. Sud, Ca Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

question of law which is put forth by the assessee where the assessee has claimed an exemption for the first time, under section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act, which is legally allowable to him, on the basis of materials already available on record, and in order to correctly assess

School Managing Society Capt. Gurcharan Singh, Kaputhala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward ( Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 562/ASR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Section 10Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Dr Shivani Bhatt Charitable Foundation, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-Exmp, Vadodara

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

ITA 1989/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

Jawaharlal Darda Ducation Society, Yavatmal vs. DCIT Cir-Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 368/NAG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

learned CIT Exemptions was justified in rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s 10(23C)(ii), which was selected inadvertently instead of section 10(23C)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 2. ITA No. 104/Nag/2025 the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Whether, on the facts ... Further, the provisions of clause (iii), of first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 are related to application for regular approval under section 10(23C) of the Act for a trust / 3 ITA Nos. 368 & 104/Nag./2024 Jawaharlal Darda Education Society institution which is provisionally approved under section 10

Jawaharlal Darda Education Society, Yavatmal vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir-Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 104/NAG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)