← 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 Jt. CIT (OSD) (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 440/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)

comply and that the Appellate Tribunal ignored the substantive discussion and findings of the first appellate authority on the application of proviso to Sections 2(15) and 13 (8) of the Act?” 4.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its common judgment dated ... 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. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5517/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11oSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

heard. (2) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the denial of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by invoking proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. (3) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the claim of deduction

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

business and commerce and total receipts of the assessee from such activities are more than 20% of the total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section ... 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 consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 4. Whether

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3198/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

business and commerce and total receipts of the assessee from such activities are more than 20% of the total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section ... 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 consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 4. Whether

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3197/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

business and commerce and total receipts of the assessee from such activities are more than 20% of the total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section ... 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 consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 4. Whether

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

business and commerce and total receipts of the assessee from such activities are more than 20% of the total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section ... 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 consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 4. Whether

Confederation of Bahadurgarh Industries, Jhajjar, Haryana vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, the Applicant’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1578/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : N/A Confederation Of Vs. Cit Exemptions, Bahadurgarh Industries, Chandigarh Jhajjar Haryana, C.R. Building, Plot No. Gr-18B/2, Ganpati Himalaya Marg, Dham, Industrial Area, Sector-17, Chandigarh Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana -124507 (Pan: Aafac3698A) (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)

fact that what the applicant is doing is basically providing a service to industries for a fee, thereby being hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Nothing is brought on record to show activities being conducted are for promotion of industries in Jhajjar

Sree Thyagabrahma Sangeetha Sabha, Paliyam Road, Thrissur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ernakulam

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

ITA 231/COCH/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2024-25

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

learned CIT (Exemption), Kochi rejected had not granted registration stating that conducting Karnatic/Hindustani music programs is not a charitable activity within the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Association of Corpration and Apex Societies of Handloom, Janpath, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2081/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No:- 2081/Del/2024 (Assessment Years- 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri KVS Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

ignoring that the assessee's activity falls under the category of Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility and first proviso to Section 2(15) is clearly applicable to it as the total receipts derived by way of Subscription, Administrative charges on STS, Administrative charges on exhibition ... since the receipts under the heads 'Subscription and administrative charges on STS being more than 20% of the gross receipts, the proviso to Section 2(15) is applicable and accordingly disallowed the exemption u/s 11 & amp; 12. Aggrieved by this appellant Trust preferred this appeal. Page 2

Rotary International District 3054 Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

thus two issues requiring our adjudication in this appeal first, whether or not the CIT(A) was justified in holding that proviso to Section 2(15) will not have any application on the facts of this case and thus benefit of Section 11 cannot be declined to the assessee ... I.T.A No. 844/Ahd/2023 Page No 7 Rotary International District 3054 Charitable Trust. vs. CIT(E) the provisions of Section 13(8) read proviso to Section 2(15). In response to this requisition, the assessee explained at length about the activities of the United Way of Baroda, which includes supporting

The Maharaja Pratapsinh Coronation Gymkhana, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Vadodara

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 939/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessee is granted registration u/s 12A/AA of the Act. The Revenue Authorities held that the assessee has been covered by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act based on the fees collected by the assessee against the services provided to the members as well as non-members

The Maharaja Pratapsinh Coronation Gymkhana, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Vadodara

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 938/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessee is granted registration u/s 12A/AA of the Act. The Revenue Authorities held that the assessee has been covered by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act based on the fees collected by the assessee against the services provided to the members as well as non-members

The Maharaja Pratapsinh Coronation Gymkhana, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Vadodara

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 937/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessee is granted registration u/s 12A/AA of the Act. The Revenue Authorities held that the assessee has been covered by the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act based on the fees collected by the assessee against the services provided to the members as well as non-members

ITO(Exmp)-2(4), Mumbai vs. Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4545/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Income Tax Officer, Mehli Mehta Music Exemption Ward- 2(4) Foundation 609, 6Th Floor, 2, Banoo Mansion, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill Road, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Kemps Corner, Mumbai- 400026. Mumbai- 400026. Pan: Aaatt2799K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mayank ThosarFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 2Section 2(15)

concert tickets and concert receipts (sponsorship) the authorities below denied the exemption by holding that these activities fell within the purview of proviso to section 2(15) of the act being “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. 6.1. Ld.Sr.Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of coordinate ... 15)." Hon’ble Supreme Court thus enunciates that, once the object of the assessee falls within the category of education, the first proviso to section 2(15) does not apply as it does not fall within the residual category of“general public utility”. 6.4. Hon’ble Supreme Court

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4307/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under section 11 to your appellant, on account of the applicability of the proviso to section 2(15). 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the appellant's activities fell under the category of "advancement

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 4306/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under section 11 to your appellant, on account of the applicability of the proviso to section 2(15). 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the appellant's activities fell under the category of "advancement ... fall within the last limb, i.e.,advancement of any other object of general public utility, which alone is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5.2. He submitted that, conducting of classes for students and charging for the same, holding of concerts and selling its tickets

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 4261/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under section 11 to your appellant, on account of the applicability of the proviso to section 2(15). 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the appellant's activities fell under the category of "advancement ... fall within the last limb, i.e.,advancement of any other object of general public utility, which alone is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5.2. He submitted that, conducting of classes for students and charging for the same, holding of concerts and selling its tickets

Mehli Mehta Music Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 4260/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/ Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under section 11 to your appellant, on account of the applicability of the proviso to section 2(15). 7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in holding that the appellant's activities fell under the category of "advancement ... fall within the last limb, i.e.,advancement of any other object of general public utility, which alone is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5.2. He submitted that, conducting of classes for students and charging for the same, holding of concerts and selling its tickets

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3531/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Swami Vivekanand Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Medical Mission Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Peddar C/O Sanjivani Hospital, Vs. Road, Cumbala Hill, Datta Mandir Road, Mumbai - 400026 Virar(W) Mumbai – 401303 Pan: Aabts9185K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anil Sathe,Ca Revenue By : Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, With Regard To The Assessment/Penalty Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. We Take Up The Quantum Appeal First Relating To Assessment Order In Ita No.3531/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

concluding that the activities of assessee being incidental to main activity do not qualify to be trade, commerce or business covered vide proviso to section 2(15) of the Act not withstanding laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no. 21762 of 2017 in various batch

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3530/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Swami Vivekanand Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Medical Mission Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Peddar C/O Sanjivani Hospital, Vs. Road, Cumbala Hill, Datta Mandir Road, Mumbai - 400026 Virar(W) Mumbai – 401303 Pan: Aabts9185K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anil Sathe,Ca Revenue By : Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, With Regard To The Assessment/Penalty Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. We Take Up The Quantum Appeal First Relating To Assessment Order In Ita No.3531/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

concluding that the activities of assessee being incidental to main activity do not qualify to be trade, commerce or business covered vide proviso to section 2(15) of the Act not withstanding laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no. 21762 of 2017 in various batch