← 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)

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4666/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

applicable to the facts of the present facts of the case as the said case was in the context of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act which would apply to trusts involved in the advancement of the objects of the general public utility. The Appellant hospital is engaged ... CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 (Point No. 2.1) as relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner, it has been clarified that the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act will not apply to medical relief etc. and where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad vs. Shree Vallabh Seva Kendra, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 201/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate
Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

Section 2(15) of the Income-Tax Act defines charitable purpose to include, the advancement of any other object of GPU. The proviso to section 2(15) of the Act provides that such advancement of object of GPU would not be considered charitable, if an institution is engaged in trade ... trade, commerce or business"; and assuming the consideration is significantly higher than the costs, the income will attract the mischief of the proviso to section 2(15), and be considered to be commercial in nature if the threshold limit of 20% is crossed. This is squarely applicable to the facts

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting the income as computed by him at Rs.19,52,31,111/-, to taxation. 3. BECAUSE ... exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting assessed income of Rs.24,99,43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting the income as computed by him at Rs.19,52,31,111/-, to taxation. 3. BECAUSE ... exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting assessed income of Rs.24,99,43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting the income as computed by him at Rs.19,52,31,111/-, to taxation. 3. BECAUSE ... exemption under section 11 read with section 12 of the Act for the reason that the same is hit by first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and other reasons and subjecting assessed income of Rs.24,99,43,047/- to taxation. 3. BECAUSE the CIT(A) erred both

Samarthan Centre for Development Support, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 404/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2018-19 Samarthan Centre For Dcit (Exemption) Development Support, Bhopal 36, Green Venue, बनाम/ Kolar Road Huzur, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaats3998P Assessee By Shri Pradeep Ambastha & Ashish Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270A

They do not fall in the residual category of “the advancement of any other object of general public utility”, therefore the restrictive proviso to section 2(15) is not attracted. Alternatively, even if they are held to fall in the residual Page 4 of 10 Samarthan Centre for Development Support

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority (Formely Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Lucknow vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

further observed that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of real estate business and the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable to its case. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the claim of exemption ... profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority(Formerly Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Ayodhya vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 143/LKW/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

further observed that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of real estate business and the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable to its case. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the claim of exemption ... profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad

Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad vs. Dy. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1073/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

Rs.95,60,17,385/- on account of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income ... 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income

Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad vs. DCIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1072/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

Rs.95,60,17,385/- on account of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income ... 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income

Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad vs. DCIT(Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 1071/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

Rs.95,60,17,385/- on account of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income ... 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income

Dy. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

Rs.95,60,17,385/- on account of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income ... 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 of surplus ignoring the fact that the activities of the authority are hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get benefit of section 11 of the Income

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 520/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

further observed that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of real estate business and the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable to its case. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the claim of exemption ... profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad

M/S Ayodhya Faizabad Developement Authority, Faizabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 518/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

further observed that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of real estate business and the provisions of the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were applicable to its case. He, therefore, asked the assessee as to why the claim of exemption ... profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai A P M C, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5613/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 131Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the assessee is engaged in business activities and therefore proviso to section 2(15) of the Act shall be applicable and exemption u/s 11 of the Act shall be denied to the assessee? 5. On the facts ... other object of general public utility" even then it is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee consist of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business as laid down

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai A P M C, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5611/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 131Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Supreme Court's Judgment in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, the assessee is engaged in business activities and therefore proviso to section 2(15) of the Act shall be applicable and exemption u/s 11 of the Act shall be denied to the assessee? 5. On the facts ... other object of general public utility" even then it is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 because it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) as the income of the assessee consist of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business as laid down

Centre for Socio Economic Andenvironmental Studies, Padivattom, Kochi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kochi

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

ITA 201/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Centre For Socio Economic & .......... Appellant Environmenal Studies Iind Floor, Khadi Federation Building N.H. Byepass, Padivattom, Kochi 682024 [Pan: Aaaac1878P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Exemption Ward, Kochi Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

total income of Rs.18,23,020/- denying exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by placing reliance on the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the ground that the appellant is charging fees for the services rendered by it. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... submitted that merely because the appellant is charging fees for the services rendered by it, does not by itself attract proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is further submitted that in light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Shri Shirdi Saibaba Spiritual and Charitable Trust, Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1777/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1777/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito (Exemptions) Shri Shirdi Saibaba Spiritual & बनाम/ Charitable Trust Ward-3, Chennai. # 17, 2Nd Floor, Sai Business Point, Mount Vs. Road, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaats-3448-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar (Jcit) -Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Debendra Narayan Kar (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar (JCIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Debendra Narayan Kar (Advocate)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)(vi)

activity of sale of devotional articles was utilized for carrying out the objects. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that 1st proviso to Section 2(15) clearly 5. stipulates that irrespective of 'application' of such income, the income from activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business ... receipts by way of sale of devotional articles is Rs.1,71,98,375/- which exceeds the threshold limit as envisaged in 2% proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Further, the commercial element is associated with such sale, as the assessee has made a profit

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 1353/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

earning activities were inherently commercial in nature and fell within the scope of trade, commerce, or business. The AO held that the proviso to Section 2(15) applied in this case, as the activities involved rendering services for a fee. Moreover, the AO dismissed reliance on the ITAT ruling ... when they involve in the collection of fees, do not fall within the scope of trade, commerce, or business as per the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The finding of the Tribunal in the case of BDA (supra) are extracted as under: 9. At the time

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 1352/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 147Section 148Section 2(13)Section 2(15)Section 260A

earning activities were inherently commercial in nature and fell within the scope of trade, commerce, or business. The AO held that the proviso to Section 2(15) applied in this case, as the activities involved rendering services for a fee. Moreover, the AO dismissed reliance on the ITAT ruling ... when they involve in the collection of fees, do not fall within the scope of trade, commerce, or business as per the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The finding of the Tribunal in the case of BDA (supra) are extracted as under: 9. At the time