“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

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

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

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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 3077/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)

falls under the category of ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’ and thus shall attract the provisions of the proviso to section 2(15) on income from the activities such as exhibitions of commercial entities, professional artists, space for corporate meetings and functions etc. which clearly ... properties is not a business income but income from house property and thus the provisions of section 11(4A) and proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in the assessee’s case despite the fact that the objects of the trust are only in the nature of “advancement

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 3076/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 271(1)

Airoli Sports Association, Navi Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 3489/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

affirming the view of the assessing officer in holding that activities carried out by the assessee fall within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, & therefore the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act in respect ... nature of business and further erred in holding that the activities carried out by the assessee are covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the issuesraised

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1123/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

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

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) to the assessee’s case has been decided by the Coordinate Bench in this very assessment year in ITA No. 499/Kol/2024 wherein ... material on record, we note that in the assessment year 2018-19 the Tribunal has decided the issue of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act to the assessee vide order dated 28.06.2024. In the said order, the Coordinate Bench first held that the assessee

Shri Baba Balaknath Seva Sansthan, Jaipur vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of

ITA 552/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.) ( through V.C.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

India Trade Promotion Organisation v. DGIT, 371 ITR 333, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while upholding the constitutional validity of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act held that same would apply where the dominant intention of a trust or the institution is profit making. Here, nothing

Shri Baba Balaknath Seva Sansthan, Jaipur vs. The CIT Exemption, Jaipur

Appeals are disposed of

ITA 551/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2024

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.) ( through V.C.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(2), Mumbai vs. Old Girtonians Association Property Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the department is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4418/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billatya & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 11Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

view of the case being re-opened in light its activities of the assessee involved in the 7th limb which attracts proviso to section 2(15) and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ... facts and circumstance the case which has been re-opened on the basis of fresh interpretation of law with respect to the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act in the judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in ACIT (Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

exempt u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of assessee clearly Julis under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as the assessee is engaged in the advancement of any other object of general public utility and there ... proviso and provisions of section 13(8) of the IT. Act, under which no exemption u/s 11 is admissible once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted". 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lil.OTA) was right, despite the fact that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3266/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi, Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(3)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Tamilnadu Industrial Guidance and Export Promotion Bureau, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptionas Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1660/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1659 & 1660/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Tamil Nadu Industrial The Income Tax Officer, Guidance & Export Vs Exemptions Ward 1, Promotion Bureau, Chennai No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aacct 7538B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

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

disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act by holding that the assessee being a GPU in term of amended proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and therefore, not a charitable organisation. For this, assessee has raised various grounds which are argumentative, need not be reproduced ... health but under public general utility. Therefore the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act are squarely applicable. According to AO, proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act are applicable as it charges fees from the business organizations for the services rendered by it. Even

Tamilnadu Industrial Guidance and Export Promotion Bureau, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptionas Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1659/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

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

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

Therefore, the trust is carrying out activities, which are not in accordance with its objects. Further, Ld. CIT(E) noted that the proviso to Section 2(15) makes it clear that if the assessee is engaged in charitable activities under General Public Utility (GPU) then it has to comply with ... provisos mentioned in Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. The proviso to Section 2(15) was inserted to keep a check on the entities who have other objects of GPU and who use object of GPU as a mask or a device to hide the true purpose which

DCIT(E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi, Civic Centre Delhi vs. Indian Olympic Association, Delhi

In the result, as the grounds have no substance the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2676/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (E), Vs Indian Olympic Association, Circle-1(1), Olympic Bhawan, New Delhi. B-29, Qutub Institutional Area, Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aaati3010J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR

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

Association and the kinds of receipts and concluded that the activities of the assessee do not fall under the limbs of amended proviso to section 2(15) and has to be considered falling in the category of advancement of general public utility. The AO observed that the activities are commercial ... receipts constituting its major commercial income is more than 20% of the total receipts. Therefore, the assessee is hit by the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and, hence not eligible for benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and, accordingly, assessed assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Society for Applied Microwave Electronics Engineering and Research, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1132/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Society For Applied Income Tax Microwave Electronics (Exemption)- 2(1) Engineering & Room No. 608, Research 6Th Floor, Sameer, Mtnl, Vs. Iit Campus, Peddar Road, Hill Side, Cumbala Hill, Mumbai- 400076. Maharashtra – 400026. Pan: Aalas5825K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Pujabi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT- D.R

Section 10(21)Section 11Section 2(15)Section 250

more than Rs.25 Lakhs and hence the exemption u/s 11 shall not be granted to it as per the provisions of the proviso to section 2(15)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in Ignoring ... charitable, such activities will fall in the category of advancement of any other object of general public utility only hence applicability of proviso to section 2(15) should have been examined as the same result into denial of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act? 3. Whether on the facts

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

assessee also supports the contention that the assessee Trust is not engaged in any business activity. In view of these by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and accordingly, exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee Trust. It is ordered accordingly

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Surat Urban Development Authority, Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 227/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

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

order, following Gujarat High Court judgment in assessee’s own case held that the assessee cannot be considered to cover by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act which was been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017 in assessee ... business" and as a result, would have to comply with the quantified limit (as amended from time to time) in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act B.3. In clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act "commercial" has the same meaning as "trade, commerce

DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Surat Urban Development Authority, Surat

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 226/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

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

Kerala Industrial Infrastruture Dev Corporation(Kinfra), Trivandrum vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax(Exemption), Trivandrum

ITA 452/COCH/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263

exemption under Section 11 read with Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act or whether in terms of the first proviso to Section 2(15), they would become ineligible for such exemption. Thus, pithily put, the issue is as to whether its activity would be one which involves ... income generated by way of premium and attendant income from that property and utilisation of that parcel. The question whether the proviso to Section 2(15) would apply is something that has to be decided on the basis of the activity or activities during a particular year which would fall

Assistant Director of Income-Tax(Exemption), Trivandrum vs. Kerala Industrial Infrastructure Dev.Corporation, Trivandrum

ITA 287/COCH/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260ASection 263