“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)

Basaveshwer Devalay English Medium Higher Primary School Basavanabagewadi, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1409/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(b)Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Dolphin Club, Chennai vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3107/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं. Ita No 3107/Chny/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: -- Dolphin Club V. Cit, (E), 3/15, Jeswanth Nagar, Mogappiar No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi West,Chennai-600037 Road, Nungambakkam Chennai-600034 [Pan: Aaatd 0288 P] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in 448 ITR 594, which ratio was in the context of Section 10(23C) of the Act and was held to be prospective in nature by them, the action in rejecting the appellant's reliance upon

Siddhi Vinayak Shiksha Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Gwalior vs. CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 579/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Siddhi Vinayak Shiksha Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Gwalior vs. CIT(Extemption), Bhopal

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

ITA 578/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra20 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Ramjidas Budhraja Charitable Trust (Sgm), Chhindwara vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment framed by the Assessing Officer. 3. In this case the assessee being purely educational institution its income was exempt under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. That due to change in law the assessee Trust was required to obtain registration under Section 12AA of the Income ... assessee has raised a ground that in case of charitable institution existing solely for the purpose of education their income is exempt under Section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. The direction for filing the return if the gross receipts of the institution exceed Rs.1 Crore is inserted

Kanahiya Lal Politechnic, Roorkee vs. ITO, W-1(3)(2), Haridwar

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

ITA 86/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Kanahiya Lal Polytechnic Vs Nfac, Delhi/ Dehradun Road, Roorkee Ito, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Uttarakhand-247667 Lines, Roorkee, Pan-Aabak4938M Uttarakhand--247667 Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tilak Raj, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/110417665 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 22.03.2023, On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 1,39,81,145/- In Union Bank Of India During The Financial Year 2015-16. The Assessee Society Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. Thereafter, Statutory Notices Were Issued From Time To Time To Provide The Assessee An Opportunity To Substantiate Its Claim By Submission Of Documentary Evidences. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Despite Of Many Opportunities, Assessee Failed To File Any Reply Or Documentary Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. In Absence Of Information & Documentary Evidence Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,86,27,053/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Trust, Mainpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(5), Mainpuri

ITA 607/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Badshah Yadav Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Campus S. K. Scientific Ward -4(2)(5), Public Inter College Karhal, Mainpuri Manipuri Pan : Aaots3631B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 144Section 234BSection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

educational institution and not taxable income, and that the Appellant's annual receipts were below Rs. 1 crore, thereby qualifying for exemption under section 10(23C)(iad), even in the absence of registration under section 12A. 2.3 BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the addition mechanically, ignoring overwhelming documentary ... inasmuch as the substantive addition itself is unsustainable, and further, the Appellant being an educational institution eligible for exemption under section 10(23C) (iiiad) had no liability to pay advance tax; without prejudice, the levy of such interest is purely consequential and, upon deletion or reduction of the addition

Balaji Educational Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Lucknow

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

ITA 712/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

submitting that there was an inadvertent typographical mistake in wrongly making claim of exempted income u/s 10(23C)(iv) instead of the correct section 10(23C)(iiiad) of I.T. Act. The aforesaid application for rectification order u/s 154 of the Act was rejected vide order dated 22.06.2020 and the aforesaid ... Head Note of the said decision is reproduced as under: “Where assessee, a trust, in earlier years had been claiming exemption under section 10(23C) and it got registration under section 12A on 2.9.2014 and it in return filed for assessment year 2014-15 claimed exempt income under section 10

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2616/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting reasonable cause which was brought to his notice by filling an affidavit along with ... Total Rs. 4,89,85,09,303/- ---------------------- The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, being a Trust financed more than 50% by the State Government

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2615/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2614/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2613/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 2612/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 234ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69

Shri Narayan Jan Kalyan Ewam Gramin Vikas Samiti, Barnahal Mainpuri Up vs. ITO Exemption Ghaziabad, Income Tax Office Exemption Ghaziabad

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 244/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.244/धिल्ली/2026 (नि.व. 2017-18) Shri Narayan Jan Kalyan Ewam Gramin Vikas Samiti Barnahal Mainpuri, Uttar Pradesh, 205261 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaoas-9172-N बिाम Vs. Income Tax Office [Exemption], ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshtha, Advocate प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit (A)’) Dated 27.06.2025, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional. The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 32 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshtha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Gayatri Shiksha Nyas, Agra vs. ITO (Exemption), Agra

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

ITA 520/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

initio. 6. That the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the matter on merits despite the appellant's return being filed under section 10(23C) (illad), where receipts were below Rs. 1 crore, making it fully eligible for exemption. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining ... treating voluntary contributions as income under section 11(1)(d), whereas the appellant never claimed exemption under section 11 but under section 10(23C)(iiiad). 8. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves

Gayatri Shiksha Nyas, Agra vs. ITO(Exemption), Agra

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

ITA 513/AGR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

Shri Achleshwar Mahadevji Ji Sarvjanik Niyas, Gwalior vs. CIT(E), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/AGR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Asst. Director of It (Exemp)-II, Hyderabad vs. Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (Aware), Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/HYD/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

issue of accumulation from A.Ys. 1990–91 to 1992–93 is concerned, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was granted exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act for these years. He invited our attention to the exemption certificate placed at page nos. 726 & 727 of the paper book ... placed at page nos. 140 & 141 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee’s claim of exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act for A.Ys. 1990–91 and 1992–93 was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that the Revenue had filed appeal before

Md Educational Society, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6422/DEL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

Section 10Section 154Section 2Section 250

Education Society 3. That the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad),income received by a person by means of any university or any other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for the purpose of profit and having aggregate ... income. 5. That the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC erred in not eligible for exemption under section SECTION 10(23C) (IIIAD), 10(23C) this receipts for charitable activity covered u/s 2 (15) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income

JCIT(OSD), Range-10, New Delhi, C.R. Building ITO vs. Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Kasturba Nagar

ITA 609/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmarec Limited, C/O D-22, Second Floor, South Extension 1, New Delhi – 110 049

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR

Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B': NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA