← All Phrases

“proviso to section 2(15)”

Charitable TrustsSection 2(15)Section 2(15)581 judgments

The decision most relied on for proviso to section 2(15) is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278), cited in 390 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on proviso to section 2(15)

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)
371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court
128
citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
10 SCC 304 · 1996 · Reported
123
citing judgments

A 'trade' is primarily defined as the exchange of goods for goods or money, and secondarily as a business carried on with a view to profit. The term 'business' is more comprehensive than 'trade', encompassing manufacturing activities.

362 ITR 539 (Gujarat) (d) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT
347 ITR 99 · 2012 · High Court
112
citing judgments

The broad definition of 'business' should not be applied when interpreting the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the object and purpose of the section must be considered.

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT
396 ITR 323 · 2017 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Development authorities can continue to be regarded as existing for a 'Charitable Purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, even after the introduction of the proviso to that section. The contention that such authorities automatically lose their charitable status due to the proviso is incorrect.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) v. DGIT (Exemptions)
358 ITR 91 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

An institution carrying out charitable objects, such as education or advancement of general public utility, does not lose its Section 11 exemption merely by collecting fees for activities like campus placements or educational guidance, as this does not constitute carrying on a business.

DIT v. Sabarmati Gaushala Trust
362 ITR 539 · 2014 · High Court
63
citing judgments

Activities of a trust established for the advancement of general public utility do not constitute a 'business' activity if undertaken without private motive, thus qualifying for exemption under Section 11 read with Section 2(15), even when charging fees or receiving consideration.

Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sai Publication Fund
258 ITR 70 · 2002 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

If a charitable organization's dominant activity is not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity performed to achieve its main object will also not be considered 'business,' even if it generates income, provided the primary activity is not driven by a profit intent.

Judgments citing proviso to section 2(15)

Maha Acadamy of Pediatric Neurology, Nagpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 217/NAG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Mar 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymaha Academy Of Pediatric Cit (Exemptions), Pune Neurology, Plot No.7, Block Vs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, Guru Balawantsing Compound, Near Lokmat Building, Patwardhan Ground, Nagpur-440012. Pan : Aaqam 4626 H Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pranav Ashtikar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2026

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Ashtikar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

total receipts. 22. Moreover, since we have already held that the assessee’s activities fall under the independent head “education,” the proviso to section 2(15), which applies only to the residual limb, is irrelevant. (Maha Academy of Pediatric Neurology) 6. In view of the settled legal position, including

Micro Finance Industry Network, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 5879/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

support and represent microfinance 6. The assessee was further asked to furnish an undertaking that there is no infringement to the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. In response thereto the undertaking was duly given which is part of the paper book. 7. In fact, the assessee

Micro Finance Industry Network, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 5878/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

support and represent microfinance 6. The assessee was further asked to furnish an undertaking that there is no infringement to the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. In response thereto the undertaking was duly given which is part of the paper book. 7. In fact, the assessee

Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Sri Gaura Nitai Seva Trust, North Masi Street, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Income Tax Office, Madurai

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

ITA 2130/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri N. Madan Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 24.02.2026
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

while doing so the Assessing Officer had denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The Assessing Officer of the opinion that the appellant trust was carrying on :- 3 -: activity in the nature of trade of commerce business ... activity the appellant is in the nature of charitable activities. The appellant trust is indulging into trade and upheld the applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal before us. In the present appeal, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted

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

activities carried on by the appellant are commercial in nature intending to make profits. (b) concluding that appellant is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8). (c) not appreciating that the appellant, a statutory body of Government of Karnataka is a special entity to achieve ... rightly claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. 3.5 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso to section 2(15) and section 13(8) are inapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable organization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is to be allowed

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

activities carried on by the appellant are commercial in nature intending to make profits. (b) concluding that appellant is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8). (c) not appreciating that the appellant, a statutory body of Government of Karnataka is a special entity to achieve ... rightly claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. 3.5 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso to section 2(15) and section 13(8) are inapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable organization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is to be allowed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Vijayawada vs. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 742/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. The assessing authorities must every year, scrutinize the record to discern whether the nature of the assessee’s activities amounts ... trade, commerce or business”, then it must be examined whether the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15), has been breached, thus disentitling them to exemption.” 5. Heard the Ld.CIT-DR and perused the material on record. In the earlier years

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)

profit maximization is not the predominant motive. At the stage of registration, the authority is not required to conclusively determine whether the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted. That aspect can be examined during assessment based on actual receipts of a particular year. The findings

Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur vs. Exemption Circle, Raipur

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

ITA 653/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

erred in making addition of Rs.1,71,93,880/- being net surplus shown in the income expenditure a/c on account of proviso to section 2(15) stating the activity of the assessee is in the nature of commercial activity and the receipts in the nature of commercial activity are more ... Sports/Cricket Associations, such as BCCI and State Cricket Associations, Private Trusts, titled as Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra), has interpreted the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and has also answered the question as to whether the above mentioned categories of assessees were involved in the object

Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur vs. Exemption Circle, Raipur

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

ITA 652/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

erred in making addition of Rs.1,71,93,880/- being net surplus shown in the income expenditure a/c on account of proviso to section 2(15) stating the activity of the assessee is in the nature of commercial activity and the receipts in the nature of commercial activity are more ... Sports/Cricket Associations, such as BCCI and State Cricket Associations, Private Trusts, titled as Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra), has interpreted the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and has also answered the question as to whether the above mentioned categories of assessees were involved in the object

Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Exemption Circle, Raipur

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

ITA 651/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

erred in making addition of Rs.1,71,93,880/- being net surplus shown in the income expenditure a/c on account of proviso to section 2(15) stating the activity of the assessee is in the nature of commercial activity and the receipts in the nature of commercial activity are more ... Sports/Cricket Associations, such as BCCI and State Cricket Associations, Private Trusts, titled as Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra), has interpreted the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and has also answered the question as to whether the above mentioned categories of assessees were involved in the object

Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Exemption Circle, Raipur

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

ITA 650/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

erred in making addition of Rs.1,71,93,880/- being net surplus shown in the income expenditure a/c on account of proviso to section 2(15) stating the activity of the assessee is in the nature of commercial activity and the receipts in the nature of commercial activity are more ... Sports/Cricket Associations, such as BCCI and State Cricket Associations, Private Trusts, titled as Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra), has interpreted the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and has also answered the question as to whether the above mentioned categories of assessees were involved in the object

Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Exemption Circle, Raipur

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

ITA 649/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

erred in making addition of Rs.1,71,93,880/- being net surplus shown in the income expenditure a/c on account of proviso to section 2(15) stating the activity of the assessee is in the nature of commercial activity and the receipts in the nature of commercial activity are more ... Sports/Cricket Associations, such as BCCI and State Cricket Associations, Private Trusts, titled as Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (supra), has interpreted the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and has also answered the question as to whether the above mentioned categories of assessees were involved in the object

Charotar Bhal Rize Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 704/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

that the assessee had claimed advancement of “any other object of general public utility” as one of its objects. Referring to the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, CIT(Exemptions) held that where such advancement involves carrying on activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business

Charotar Bhal Rize Foundation, Anand vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 703/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iv)

that the assessee had claimed advancement of “any other object of general public utility” as one of its objects. Referring to the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, CIT(Exemptions) held that where such advancement involves carrying on activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business

Srushti Conservation Foundation, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

within the meaning of section 2(15) of the ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that, Appellant is not covered within the meaning of proviso to section 2(15) since, the proviso applies to "trade/commerce/business" activity per se and not to a yeomen philanthropic activity as that of the Appellant. 2 ... submitted that the assessee’s activities i.e. preservation of environment are of charitable nature and the same are not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. He drew our attention to the following para of the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2009. “For the purposes

Powerloom Development & Export Promotion Council, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem), Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7767/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 250

Miscellaneous income 76,616 TOTAL 3,61,22,027 7. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act should not be applied, as its activities were in the nature of trade, commerce or business, etc., during the year

Powerloom Development & Export Promotion Council, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7766/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 250

Miscellaneous income 76,616 TOTAL 3,61,22,027 7. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act should not be applied, as its activities were in the nature of trade, commerce or business, etc., during the year

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Enviormental Service Society, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1817/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, CAFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

accepted the contention of the assessee that the activities were not carried out with a profit motive and that the proviso to section 2(15) was not attracted. Following the binding precedent in the assessee’s own case and also placing reliance on judicial pronouncements including the decision ... were incidental to and in furtherance of the charitable objects of the trust, that there was no profit motive involved, that the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was not attracted and that the entire income had been applied towards charitable purposes. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted