proviso to section 2(15) — 581 case laws

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramnagar

ITA 1056/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

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

The Ahmedabad Engineering Manufacturers Association, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1660/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-D.R

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 2(15)

contention that I.T.A No. 1660/Ahd/2024 A.Y. N.A. Page No. 7 The Ahmedabad Engineering Manufacturers Association vs. CIT(E) the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax, 1961 was not invoked by the CIT(A) is not proper as section 2(15) and proviso thereto is a definition clause/section

Sasha Association for Craft Producers, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1936/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

these activities/ assistances which are not of charitable in nature. According to the ld. AO the said activity is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee falls within the category of advancement of any other of general public utility . Accordingly

Sasha Association for Craft Producers, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1935/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

these activities/ assistances which are not of charitable in nature. According to the ld. AO the said activity is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee falls within the category of advancement of any other of general public utility . Accordingly

Sasha Association for Craft Producers, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

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

ITA 1934/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 249Section 250Section 253Section 3Section 5

these activities/ assistances which are not of charitable in nature. According to the ld. AO the said activity is hit by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee falls within the category of advancement of any other of general public utility . Accordingly

DCIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna vs. M/S Deo Mangal Memorial Trust, Patna

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 67/PAT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 253(2)

Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been ... 15) of the Act being “the advancement of any other object of general public utility”. The Ld. DR argued that once the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applicable then the action of the Ld. AO was otherwise justified. 3.1 The Bench sought the assistance

DCIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna vs. M/S Deo Mangal Memorial Trust, Patna

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 253(2)

Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been ... 15) of the Act being “the advancement of any other object of general public utility”. The Ld. DR argued that once the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applicable then the action of the Ld. AO was otherwise justified. 3.1 The Bench sought the assistance

DCIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna vs. M/S Deo Mangal Memorial Trust, Patna

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 65/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 253(2)

Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been ... 15) of the Act being “the advancement of any other object of general public utility”. The Ld. DR argued that once the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applicable then the action of the Ld. AO was otherwise justified. 3.1 The Bench sought the assistance

All India Chess Federatiion, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 30/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.28, 29 & 30/Chny/2023 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 All India Chess Federation, The Income Tax Officer Hall No.70, Vs. (Exemptions), Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Ward-1, Chennai. Sydenhams Road, Periamet, Chennai – 600 003. [Pan: Aaaaa 2155P]

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT

Section 11

Urban Development Authority [2022] 143 taxmann.com 278 (SC) and held that activities also do not come under general public utility as per proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee before us has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2838/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Industrial Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax Development Corporation, (Exemptions), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai- Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, 400 093 Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan : Aaacm3560C Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal (CIT DR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 263

does not contain any adjudication on the issue of appellant's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act with regard to proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the appellant's claim in the written submission that in view of the above order the said issue

The Market Research Society of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5087/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 274

fact that the activities of the Trust would even otherwise constitute "other objects of general public utility" and the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act would not be applicable since the alleged other receipts, even if constituted as trade, commerce or business, did not exceed Rs.25 lacs

Insurance Brokers Association of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3957/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 250

Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer to deny the exemption under section 11 on the ground that the proviso to section 2(15) was applicable in the case. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer to consider ... upholding the action of Ld.AO to deny the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the proviso to section 2(15) was applicable. 4. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that these grounds are fully covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench

Insurance Brokers Association of India, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption ) Ward -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3956/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 250

Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer to deny the exemption under section 11 on the ground that the proviso to section 2(15) was applicable in the case. 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer to consider ... upholding the action of Ld.AO to deny the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the proviso to section 2(15) was applicable. 4. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that these grounds are fully covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Coordinate Bench

Aruva Foundation, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 399/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

denied registration to assessee. Here, we find a strong merit in the contention raised by Ld. AR that proviso to section 2(15) of the Act defining ‘charitable purpose’ itself allows commerciality in the activities of assessee but upto a ceiling limit of 20%. Further, section ... section 13(8) also provides that the exemption u/s 11/12 shall be denied in that previous year only in which the proviso to section 2(15) is violated. Therefore, these provisions of law clearly show that even if any object or activity of assessee, out of various multiple objects

Aruva Foundation, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption Circle, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 398/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

denied registration to assessee. Here, we find a strong merit in the contention raised by Ld. AR that proviso to section 2(15) of the Act defining ‘charitable purpose’ itself allows commerciality in the activities of assessee but upto a ceiling limit of 20%. Further, section ... section 13(8) also provides that the exemption u/s 11/12 shall be denied in that previous year only in which the proviso to section 2(15) is violated. Therefore, these provisions of law clearly show that even if any object or activity of assessee, out of various multiple objects