“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)

Jeevan Rekha Trust, Dhanbad vs. CIT Exemption, Patna

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 23/RAN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Chowdhary, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 194JSection 80Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI

Adhin Ajab Lal Manjhi Children S Educational Society, Katihar vs. ITO Exemption Ward Bgl, Bhagalpur

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

ITA 532/PAT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuadhin Ajab Lal Manjhi Children S Vs Cit(Exemption), Patna Educational Society Gami Tola, Katihar, C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Aabta 1123 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhury, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Cit(E), Patna, Dated 24.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2025-2026, Thereby Rejecting The Application Filed For Registration U/S.12A Of The Act. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That By Mistake The Assessee Had Filed Wrong Form Relevant To The Provision Of Section 10(23C)(Vi) Of The Act. Insofar As The Assessee Had Filed The Form In Form No.10Ab. It Was Submission That The Claim Was To Be Made In From 10Ab Under Clause 12A(Iii)(Iv) Of The Act. It Was Submission That The Assessee May Be Granted An Opportunity To Rectify The Necessary Form Before Ld.Cit(Exemption).

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhury, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12A

submitted by the ld. AR that by mistake the assessee had filed wrong form relevant to the provision of section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. Insofar as the assessee had filed the form in form No.10AB. It was submission that the claim was to be made in from 10AB

Centre for E-Governance, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemption, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 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, with retrospective effect from 1-4-2009) 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

DCIT CC 8( 2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the assessment order dated 25

ITA 4351/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 254Section 80G

applied less than the prescribed percentage of its receipts towards charitable purposes and also noted that the assessee’s application for approval under section 10(23C)(via) for an earlier assessment year had been rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. The Assessing Officer was of the view that ... following grounds: That the assessee was not carrying out charitable activities - in accordance with section 2(15); That rejection of approval under section 10(23C)(via) in - earlier years disentitled the assessee from exemption under section 11; That there were serious discrepancies in billing and - accounting as pointed

Green Mumbay Lions Education Trust, Na vs. Arivs.Exemption Ward, Surat, Income-Tax Office Surat

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

ITA 547/SRT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.547/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Green Mumbay Lions Education Vs. Ito, Trust, Exemption Ward, Opp – Ratnakar Society, C/O Sgm Surat Shiroya English School, Chhapra Road, Navsari - 396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatg8361Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234A

communication to the assessee on 29.11.2024, stating that there was inconsistency in ‘deemed income’ referred in Explanation - 4 to the third proviso to section 10(23C) or section 11(3) at Sr. No.1 of Schedule 115BBI and Sr. No. 33(b) of Form No.10B. ITA No.547/SRT/2025/AY.2023-24 Green Mumbay Lions Education ... assessee. Therefore, the AO, CPC made disallowance of Rs.43,79,990/- as deemed income u/s 11(3) or Explanation – 4 of section 10(23C) of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the appellant contended that it had set apart or accumulated funds in FY 2016-17 (AY 2017-18) amounting

Swa. Savitribai Bhikalal Agrawal Memorial Trust, Nandurbar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1576/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1575 & 1576/Pun/2025 Swa Savitribai Bhikalal Vs. Cit (Exemption), Agrawal Memorial Trust, Pune Nandurbar, Maharashtra – 425426 Pan : Aavts8830R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul NaharFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Swa. Savitribai Bhikalal Agrawal Memorial Trust, Visarwadi, Navapur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1575/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Rahul NaharFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Rajah Annamalaipuram Sri Iyyappaswami Temple Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2866/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Rajah Annamalaipuram Sri Iyyappaswami Temple Trust, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 2865/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Mr.ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Prasam Rakesh Choudhary, Girnar Society, Bapurao Galli, Itwari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

Govt. of India. The assessee had submitted that the income of the assessee society is exempted by the virtue of provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) and therefore, entire income of the assessee shall always be exempted. The expenditure on depreciation is only as per the guidelines of MHRD ... assessee in its submission claimed that income of the assessee is exempted as per the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act, although no exemption was claimed in the return of income, the AO disallowed the depreciation as claimed by the assessee amounting

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhopoal, Bhopal vs. M/S Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

Town Educational Society, Ballia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Ballia

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

ITA 141/VNS/2024[2016-2017]Status: HeardITAT Varanasi19 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Town Educational Society V. Ito Ballia, Ward-2(4) Murli Manohar Town Pg Shashtri Park, Bhrighu College, Ballia, Uttar Pradesh- Ashram, Ballia-277001. 277001. Tan/Pan:Aadat7633C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri G. P. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 12 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. P. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 148Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Incometax Officer (Exemption Ward), Rajahmundry vs. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Machilipatnam

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid order

ITA 77/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 77/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward V. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Shiva Towers, 5Th Floor Batchupet, Machilipatnam Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry – 533103 Krishna District – 521001 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs4922R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 250Section 254(1)

follows: - “f. Where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A/12AA/12AB of the Act, order passed u/s 263 of the Act etc. The Page No. 3 I.T.A. No. 77/VIZ/2025 C.O. No. 8/VIZ/2025 Sri Venkateswara ... same deal with cases where the tax effect is not quantifiable, such as the cases of registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12A, 12AA & 12AB of the Act, or passed under section 263 of the Act, etc. However, it is evident from the record that

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 56/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

objects, income earned therefrom, the nexus between incidental objects and main objects, and also copies of registration under section 12A/12AA and approval under section 10(23C) of the Act as claimed in the return. Since no compliance was made by the assessee to the statutory notices and no explanation

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda, Chhapiheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 55/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chaapeheda vs. Neac, Delhi

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

ITA 54/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 270ASection 272A(1)(d)

The Institute of Marine Engineers India, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5666/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Karthik Natarajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254

reported in [2022] 143 taxmann.com 276 (SC), held that requirement for educational charitable institution, society or trust seeking approval under section 10(23C) is to ‘solely’ engage itself in education or educational activities and not engage in any activity of profit which are unrelated to education. Where

Cprs Rugnalay Denagi Samiti, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 290/PUN/2025[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Cprs Rugnalay Denagi Samiti Ito, Exemption Ward, C/O Cpr Hospital, Dasara Chowk, Kolhapur Vs. Bhendegalli S.O., Karvir, Kolhapur – 416002 Pan: Aaagc1618P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

since it does not exceed Rs.1 crore. He submitted that although under identical situation the Assessing Officer has granted the benefit of section 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act for assessment 3 year 2019-20, therefore, he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file ... allowed the claim of deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiae) of the Act for assessment year 2019-20. We find the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiae) as it stood at the relevant time read as under: “Incomes not included in total income. 10…. ….. (23C) any income received by any person

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

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R

Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

ITA Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025 Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

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

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

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.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