← 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)

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason “Trust executing contracts, providing professional services, earning commission income or rent (verification as per proviso to section 2(15) or any other section) / Large payment of salary, rent, interest, etc made to specified persons”. Statutory notice u/s 143(2

JCIT (OSD), C-1, Exemptions, Chandigarh vs. M/S Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 431/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 431/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Jcit (Osd), M/S Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Circle 1(Exemptions), Vs Model Town Road, Chandigarh. Jalandhar. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatj4768N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

reflects that it is carrying on activity in the nature of any trade, commerce or business and is therefore, covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, all the activities carried out by the trust were held to be in the nature of business

Yashwantrao Chavan Centre (Previously Know As Yashwantrao Chavan Pratishthan), Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2705/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 22

facts by upholding the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by misapplying the first proviso to Section 2(15) and assessing business income at Rs. 2,08,07,342/-. The CIT(A) failed to consider binding judicial precedents, including the decisions

Yashwantrao Chavan Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2661/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 22

facts by upholding the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by misapplying the first proviso to Section 2(15) and assessing business income at Rs. 2,08,07,342/-. The CIT(A) failed to consider binding judicial precedents, including the decisions

Yashwantrao Chavan Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption(-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2660/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 22

facts by upholding the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by misapplying the first proviso to Section 2(15) and assessing business income at Rs. 2,08,07,342/-. The CIT(A) failed to consider binding judicial precedents, including the decisions

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

activities which are in the nature of GPU. Such GPU cannot engage any commercial activities subject to the exception provided for proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the present case as assessee’s main object

Holy Family School, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5902/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

relation to trade, commerce, or business for a consideration by way of renting of the hall, and was therefore hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act inserted with effect from 01.04.2009. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section ... CBDT Circular: 6 ITA No.5902/Mum/2025 Holy Family School The Ld. AO has miserably failed to appreciate the implications and applicability of the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The implications of the said Proviso have been clearly explained by the CBDT itself in the Circular

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Motijheel, Kanpur

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

sale of properties. Besides, it is observed that the aggregate value of receipts from the activities referred to in the first proviso of section 2 (15) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts for the reason that the Ld. CI (A) has failed ... development and sale of properties, however, erroneously observed that aggregate value of receipts of the activities referred to in the first proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act. Further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that A.O. has rightly disallowed the claim of payment

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), New Delhi

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

ITA 3331/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

certain discrepancies, which had been removed by the appellant, a) giving an undertaking that there will be no infringement of first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, b) making a declaration that no part of the income of the Foundation enures or used directly or indirectly

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 3328/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

certain discrepancies, which had been removed by the appellant, a) giving an undertaking that there will be no infringement of first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, b) making a declaration that no part of the income of the Foundation enures or used directly or indirectly

Centre for E-Governance, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemption, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

that the assessee is rendering services that are inherently . Page 5 of 30 commercial and fall squarely within the mischief of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 7.2 The AO examined the nature of activities undertaken and noted that the assessee incurred expenses on salaries, consultancy, digital ... held that the activities cannot be treated as “advancement of any other object of general public utility”. 7.3 Referring to the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, the AO stated that any activity rendered in relation to trade, commerce or business for a fee or consideration, irrespective

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Indian National Theatre Trust, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4881/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 2(15)

hiring out of auditorium and providing space for rent in lieu of fee, which were commercial in nature and hence, Ist proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961 is applicable in this case. (iii) Whether on facts and in the circumstance of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

first er section 2(15) of the Act and is hit by the first proviso to section 2(15); hence, exemption u/s 11 is not proviso to section 2(15); hence, exemption u/s 11 is not proviso to section 2(15); hence, exemption u/s 11 is not allowable ... leses exemption u/s 11 due to violation appreciate that if the tru leses exemption u/s 11 due to violation of proviso to section 2(15), then ever corpus donations of proviso to section 2(15), then ever corpus donations of proviso to section 2(15), then ever corpus donations cannot

Making the Difference Foundation, Mira Road East vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5281/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

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

application without recording any finding that the Appellant's objects are 1 non-charitable OR fall within the mischief of the proviso to Section 2(15). Rejection on mere technical OR 2 Making the difference foundation, Mumbai. interpretational grounds in the absence of adverse material is unjustified. 2. The impugned

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1823/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

commerce/trace/business without considering the fact that the assessee is involved in wide spread commercial activities which is covered under first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ... appellant authority should not be treated as in the nature of trade, commerce or business and accordingly, the first and second provisos to Section 2(15) of the Act should not be applied. In response, to the show-cause notice dated 14.11.2019 the assessee filed submission and explained before

ACIT(Exemption), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos. 1822 & 1823/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : (2016-2017 & 2018-2019)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

commerce/trace/business without considering the fact that the assessee is involved in wide spread commercial activities which is covered under first and second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ... appellant authority should not be treated as in the nature of trade, commerce or business and accordingly, the first and second provisos to Section 2(15) of the Act should not be applied. In response, to the show-cause notice dated 14.11.2019 the assessee filed submission and explained before

The Mysore Association Bombay, Matunga - Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai, Lal Baug, Parel

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5860/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG (President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Kavan N. Limbasiya, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

utilization of rental receipts for meeting cost towards the objects of the trust is a relevant criteria especially in light of proviso to section 2(15) and whether by virtue of the same, the whole of the claim of exemption u/s 11 5 can be denied to the assessee trust

Shree Krishna Janmashtmi Mahotsav Samiti, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2198/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalshri Krishna Janmashtmi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahotsav Samiti Exemption, Ward 2(1) G4 Goenka Apartment, Civic Centre, Minto Road 19/41 Punjabi Bagh New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110026 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeas0987K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Gulati, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

trust are admittedly, religious and cultural and not under "advancement of any other object of general public utility" covered by the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, which bars charitable status if a trust under "general public utility" undertakes trade. Even assuming applicability, the alleged advertisement donations form

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

carried on by the appellant are commercial in nature with an intention to make profits; (b) The appellant is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) read with section 13(8) of the Act. 2. 4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

carried on by the appellant are commercial in nature with an intention to make profits; (b) The appellant is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) read with section 13(8) of the Act. 2. 4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso ... significantly higher than the cost), and the quantum of such receipts are within the prescribed limit (20% as mandated by the second proviso to Section 2(15)) the concerned statutory or government organisations can be characterized as GPU charities. It goes without saying that the other conditions imposed