← 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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Mutual Funds in India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3201/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3201/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit(Exemption)-1(1) बिधम/ Association Of Mutual Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Funds In India Vs. Mtnl Building, Cumballa 71, 7Th Floor One Hill, Mumbai-400026. Indiabulls Centre Tower- 2, Wing B, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca5550A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Shri Samir Kapadia Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.10.2022 For The Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Following The Tribunal Order In Assessee’S Own Case For Ay. 2012 13 & Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Exemption U/S 11 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Was Allowed To The Assessee. According To The Revenue, The Tribunal While Granting Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Has Not Considered The Proviso To Section 2(15) Of The Act As Well As The Recent Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Acit(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Shri SamirFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

allowed to the assessee. According to the revenue, the Tribunal while granting exemption u/s 11 of the Act has not considered the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act as well as the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad ... persons of the society. It is benefited to limited person i.e. Members of the assessee company only, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the LT. Act is applicable and not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section

The Synthetic & Art Silks Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1340/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Synthetic & Art Mills The Cit(E), Research Association, Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Sasmira Marg, Worli Vs. Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Mumbai-400025. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatt 4271 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Girish Dave, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 263

account of it being covered by the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on account of it being covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, invoking section proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Accordingly, invoking section proviso to section 2(15

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

ITA 2684/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, CIT(A) erred in invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and thereby rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by relying on the findings given ... ITAT has held in the appellant's own case for AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 and AY 2014-15 that the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act cannot be invoked in appellant's case and that it is eligible for the benefits of sections

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 1872/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

following grounds:- a) The scrutiny assessment for the Asst Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were completed by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act denying the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and income computed under Chapter ... along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, no query was raised with regard to applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act for the assessee in Asst Year 2018-19. 4. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 1871/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

following grounds:- a) The scrutiny assessment for the Asst Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were completed by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act denying the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and income computed under Chapter ... along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, no query was raised with regard to applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act for the assessee in Asst Year 2018-19. 4. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued

Income Tax Officer(Exem.)-(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2320/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

assessee, ignoring the fact that once the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, its objects are ITA No.2190, 2320, 2319, 2186/Mum/2023 Bank of India, Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme; A.Y.10-11 & 13-14 no more charitable objects then such activities cannot be treated

Income Tax Officer(Exem.)-(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2319/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

assessee, ignoring the fact that once the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, its objects are ITA No.2190, 2320, 2319, 2186/Mum/2023 Bank of India, Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme; A.Y.10-11 & 13-14 no more charitable objects then such activities cannot be treated

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-1(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2190/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

assessee, ignoring the fact that once the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, its objects are ITA No.2190, 2320, 2319, 2186/Mum/2023 Bank of India, Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme; A.Y.10-11 & 13-14 no more charitable objects then such activities cannot be treated

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-1(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2186/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

assessee, ignoring the fact that once the assessee is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, its objects are ITA No.2190, 2320, 2319, 2186/Mum/2023 Bank of India, Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme; A.Y.10-11 & 13-14 no more charitable objects then such activities cannot be treated

Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers Association, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exem)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 250

general commercial principles and the receipts from the such activities is more than 20% of the total receipt of the trust, the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in light of the law laid down ... 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 membership fees, advertisement, sale of publication, sponsorship fees, etc. which are in the nature

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Machine Tools Mfrs Association, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 250

general commercial principles and the receipts from the such activities is more than 20% of the total receipt of the trust, the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in light of the law laid down ... 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 membership fees, advertisement, sale of publication, sponsorship fees, etc. which are in the nature

Mesers Improvement Trust, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 307/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 28

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred by holding that, since proviso to section 2(15) is applicable, section 13(8) gets invoked and as a result of section 13(8), the assessee appellant looses all the benefits of sections ... 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

Sarfrosh Foundation, Moga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 144/ASR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Vatta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 135Section 80G

application without pointing out any deficiency in objects or activities of the Trust in violation of Sarfarosh Foundaton v. CIT provisions to proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, and discussion about the manner of activities being carried out by the company and whenever contributions made to the impugned

Sarfrosh Foundation, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer ( Exemptions), Jalandhar

In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 128/ASR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Vatta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 135Section 80G

application without pointing out any deficiency in objects or activities of the Trust in violation of Sarfarosh Foundaton v. CIT provisions to proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, and discussion about the manner of activities being carried out by the company and whenever contributions made to the impugned

ITO (Exemption), Udaipur vs. Tatpadam Upavan, Rajsamand

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.”

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 80

Appeals) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 11 of the IT. Act, 1961 to the assessee despite the fact that the proviso to section 2(15) is invoked in the case of the assessee as the activities of the assessee are being run on commercial basis, there being no element ... Thus, the percentage receipt from organizing of this program against total receipts works out to be more than 28%. As per proviso to section 2(15), the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose if it involves the carrying

Indian Beauty & Hygiene Association, Mumbai vs. The ITO (E)-1(3), Mumbai

ITA 689/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Joginder Singh, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 8

Hygiene Association earned from Surplus of Seminar of Rs. 8,00,000/- is treated as other income which is hit by main proviso to section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for non-charitable purpose and sustaining the addition ... erred in considering surplus of seminar of Rs. 8,00,000/- as other income hit by main proviso to section 2(15) without considering the fact that aggregate receipt for the seminar of Rs. 10,50,000/-, do not exceed the quantified limit of 20% of total receipt

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 427/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

general public utility are not charitable and further the receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based ... included in the overall income as receipts as part of trade, commerce or business, the quantitative limit of 20% imposed by second proviso to Section 2(15) would be attracted thereby negating the essential general public utility object and thus driving up the costs to be borne by the ultimate

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 425/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

general public utility are not charitable and further the receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based ... included in the overall income as receipts as part of trade, commerce or business, the quantitative limit of 20% imposed by second proviso to Section 2(15) would be attracted thereby negating the essential general public utility object and thus driving up the costs to be borne by the ultimate

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 423/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

general public utility are not charitable and further the receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based ... included in the overall income as receipts as part of trade, commerce or business, the quantitative limit of 20% imposed by second proviso to Section 2(15) would be attracted thereby negating the essential general public utility object and thus driving up the costs to be borne by the ultimate

M/S M.P. Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 422/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

general public utility are not charitable and further the receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based ... included in the overall income as receipts as part of trade, commerce or business, the quantitative limit of 20% imposed by second proviso to Section 2(15) would be attracted thereby negating the essential general public utility object and thus driving up the costs to be borne by the ultimate