← 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)

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

ITA 579/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

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

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

ITA 578/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

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

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

ITA 577/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 320/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. 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 SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Rec Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY

ITA 319/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swroop, CITDR
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

basis of the original return where the assessee was legally entitled to the exemption under section 11, if not under section 10(23C). The department should not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee as per the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL- 35)/1955, dated 11-4-1955. Hence

Guhana Educational Society, Suryapet vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 784/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.784/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Guhana Educational Society Vs. Income Tax Officer 2-1-65, Kasturi Bazar Exemption Ward-1(2) Suryapet-508213 Aayakar Bhavan Telangana Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Telangana Pan: Aaaag5294R (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 11/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Guhana Educational Society (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dated 13.03.2025 For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law; 2. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Account & In Resorting To Estimation Of Income At 8% Of The Receipts Of Rs.2,58,90,677/-;

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

Societies Act, which filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017–18 on 28.10.2017, declaring Nil income after claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, and accordingly, notices ... assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee did not possess registration under section 12A of the Act nor approval under section 10(23C) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee was assessed in the status of an Association of Persons. The Ld. AO further noticed that the assessee

Institute of Actuaries of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 7028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 10Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

Actuaries in India. It is registered as Charitable Organization under section 12A of the Act and further claims to be approved under section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. The assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring the total income

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. DCIT Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1088/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1087 & 1088/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S.D. Education Society, The Dcit (Exemptions), S.D. Model Sr. Section. School, Vs Chandigarh. Railway Road, Karnal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas5001P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Girish Aneja, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

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

S.D Education Society, Karnal vs. DCIT Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1087/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1087 & 1088/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 S.D. Education Society, The Dcit (Exemptions), S.D. Model Sr. Section. School, Vs Chandigarh. Railway Road, Karnal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabas5001P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Girish Aneja, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Girish Aneja, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

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

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 3922/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 132Section 147Section 153CSection 250Section 68

dated 28th June, 2011 of IDBI bank is a bogus donation. Therefore, on this sum, the learned Assessing Officer denied the exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act. Specific show cause notice was issued which was replied by the assessee. In reply. the assessee categorically submitted that the reliance ... that trust. Therefore, addition is not required to be made. The learned Assessing Officer rejected all these contentions and denied exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act of the donation given by the assessee. The fact shows that in the assessment order the excess of income over expenditure

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Dr D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2289/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

also a relevant consideration and it can legitimately weigh with the tax authority while deciding the applications for approval under section 10(23C). 9. Undisputed facts of this case in hand are, the exemption certificate was in force as on the date of issuance of notice. The AO has denied ... Apex Court has held that the registration under different statues is also a relevant consideration while deciding the application for approval under section 10(23C) of the Act. In the case on hand, we are not dealing with a situation where the IT Department was considering any application for granting

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Dr D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2251/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

also a relevant consideration and it can legitimately weigh with the tax authority while deciding the applications for approval under section 10(23C). 9. Undisputed facts of this case in hand are, the exemption certificate was in force as on the date of issuance of notice. The AO has denied ... Apex Court has held that the registration under different statues is also a relevant consideration while deciding the application for approval under section 10(23C) of the Act. In the case on hand, we are not dealing with a situation where the IT Department was considering any application for granting

Satyam Educational and Social Enhancement Trust, Katihar vs. ITO Exemption Ward Bhagalpur, Bhagalpur

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

ITA 529/PAT/2025[25-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(vi)

income or part thereof of the said trust or institution has been excluded from the total income on account of applicability of section 10(23C)(via)(vi)(v)(iv) of the Act or section 11 or section 12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of such

Chittapawan Brahmin Sangha, Nashik vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2421/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade
Section 10Section 119Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

vide above referred Circulars. As per above referred CBDT Circular No.7/2024, the date for filing Form No.10AB 3 for approval / approval under section 10(23C) or 12A or 80G(5) was extended upto 30th June 2024. 10. In view of the above, the present application filed in Form No. 10AB

Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur vs. Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Sangli

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2265/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2265/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Sarvoday Shikshan Sanstha, Kolhapur A/P Umadi Tal Jath, Vs. Dist. Sangli-416413 Pan : Aaets2962D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Mrs M.N. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Return is filed u/s 139, Cross objector prays for dismissing departments Appeal. 2. Cross objector Prays for allowing Assessee's claim applying section 10(23C)(iii)(ab) as per finding given by CIT(A) as trust is substantially Financed by Government (71% of Gross Receipts). 3. Without prejudice above. Cross

Shashi Krishna Educational Avam Welfare Society, Patna vs. AO, Patna

ITA 428/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Incomes which do not form part of total income.”. Both sections 10 and 11 are included within this chapter. Moreover, first line of section 10(23C) starts with the words - “any income received by any person on behalf

Gujarat Knowledge Society, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1990/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora AR’sFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 250Section 5

order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre for the Assessment Year 2017–18, whereby the denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was upheld and an addition of Rs. 4,28,98,710/- towards interest income was sustained ... assessee filed its return of Gujarat knowledge Society Vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 6– income declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. 11. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab). The Assessing Officer

Mercy Education Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

appellant especially the bonafide understanding on the non-requirement of filing the ROI mandatorily to make the claim for exemption under Section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act and further ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under such circumstances should be reckoned ... institution is less than Rs.1 crore, hence, the income of the institution do not form part of the total income as per section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. It was submitted that assessee was under a bonafide belief since income was exempted u/s.10(23C)(iiiad

Shrimand Rajchandra Gyanmandir Trust, Kheda vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2193/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 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 10ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

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

Shri Visha Oshval Jain Kelavani Mandal, Anand vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above condition

ITA 1734/AHD/2025[NA]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehal Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

activities before granting registration. The CIT(Exemptions) also placed reliance on decisions wherein it was held that while considering applications for approval under section 10(23C) of the Act, the competent authority is entitled to examine accounts and other documents to verify the manner of functioning and the genuineness