“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)

Sarswati Vidhya Pratishthan M.P, Bhupal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 392/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

appellant's case though the change was brought about in Section 2(15) by introduction of proviso therein. On careful perusal of proviso to Section 2(15) it is noted that the object of advancement of general public utility is not be considered as charitable in nature if it involves ... Supreme Court was rendered in the backdrop of provisions of the IT Act, 1961 prior to introduction of the proviso in Section 2(15) of the Act yet in our considered opinion the judicial principles laid down in the said decision continue to hold field and therefore still applicable even

Iris Knowledge Foundation, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

ITA 1947/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Chaitanya Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by applying the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s 13 of the Act. 3.2. The Appellant prays that the exemption u/s. 11 claimed by the Appellant be allowed.” 2. Briefly stated facts

International Copper Association India, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemp)- II (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a case of fee or any other consideration under proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. 3) On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred ... Income Tax (Exemption) [DIT(E)], after cancelling the registration under Section 12AA of the Act from assessment year 2009-10 considering the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, had restored hack the registration retrospectively from the assessment year 2009- 2010 after examining the cancellation matter afresh

International Copper Association India, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemp)- II (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7884/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Saraswati Sahitya Prachar Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 216/RPR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.216/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarswati Sahitya Prachar Samiti Vs Cit(Exemptions) 1, Saraswari Vihar Bhopal Rohnipuram, Behind Ayurvedik College, Raipur Chattisgarh - 492 001 Pan No. Aafas 0997J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal, Dated 26.09.2019 U/S 10(23C)(Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Appellant Assessee Is A Aop & Filed The Return Of Its Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22-08-2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs 9,40,500/- The Assessee Filed An Application In Form 56D On Dated 20/10/2018. The Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Has Rejected The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 10(23C)(Vi) On 26 September. 2019. 2. The Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Issued A Notice On Dated 12/09/2019 For Attending At The Office On 20.09.2019. The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee, Shri Nandan Lai Jain C.A. Appear Before The Ito Of The Cit (Exemption), Bhopal With The Required & Necessary Documents. 3. The Ld. A.O Had Rejected The Impugned Application Without Giving Any Proper & Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 10

Trust/institution covered under advancement of any other object of general public utility can do commercial activities upto 20% of its total receipts [proviso to section 2(15). The advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,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

Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee trust being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of my observations above

ITA 242/RPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 242/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust Vandana Bhawan, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaatr2301K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

which was more than threshold amount of Rs.10 lacs (as was applicable during the year under consideration) as contemplated in “2nd proviso” to Section 2(15) of the Act; therefore, its activities mentioned above were not to be held as having been carried out for charitable purposes. Accordingly ... culled out as under: “2.3 Facts being as above, the benefit of section 11 has been withdrawn in view of the proviso to section 2(15) as per which if the trust undertakes activities of "advancement of any other object of general public utility" and its receipt during the year

Infoparks Kerala, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

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 ... commercial in nature. In that event, the claim for tax exemption would have to be again subjected to the rigors of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the IT Act. 8 ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT E. Non-statutory bodies

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

J & K Womens Corporation Limited, Jammu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

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

ITA 164/ASR/2020[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.164/Asr/2020 Assessment Years: N/A J & K Women’S Development Vs. Cit (Exemptions) Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh. Auqaf Complex Opposite Government Hospital, Gandhi (Respondent) Nagar, Jammu. [Pan:Aaacj4584F] (Appellant)

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8(5)

29/02/2016.The relevant paragraph is extracted as below: - “16. It is seen that the opening line of Para 3 is clearly stating that Proviso to Section 2(15) will apply ONLY to entities whose purposes is advancement of any other object of general public utility. We have already held that ... first three limbs viz. relief to the poor, education or medical relief and it will not be hit by the newly inserted proviso to section 2(15). Accordingly, the benefit of this circular should also accrue to the assessee and, therefore, the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee

Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ACIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6920/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

wherein it was held that, 11 Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust “Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable purpose (Proviso to section 2(15) Assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 - Whether newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in respect of first three limbs ... since activities of studio were carried on in order to achieve main object of Trust and could not be construed as business, proviso to section 2(15) did not apply - Held, yes [Para 7.2][In favour of assessee]” 12. The Tribunal held that maintenance of studio is intrinsic

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kutchi Visa Oswal Jain Manav Seva Kendra Dahisar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed

ITA 912/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Respondent: Sh. S.N. Kabra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 250

CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 (Point No. 2.1) as relied upon by the Ld. Commissioner, it has been clarified that the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act will not apply to medical relief etc. and where the purpose of a trust or institution is relief ... purpose’ even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities. For clarity relevant clarification reads as under: “The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in respect of the first three limbs of section 2(15), i.e., relief of the poor, education or medical relief

National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Exemption, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 756/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

actually pursuing all these objects which may at the most can be considered as charitable objections of general public utility on which proviso to section 2(15) applies? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee ... Supreme Court's judgement in the case of Ahmadabad Urban Development Authority, the assessee is engaged in business activities and therefore proviso to section 2(15) of the Act shall be applicable and exemption u/s. 11 of the Act shall be denied to the assessee? 5. Whether on the facts

National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 755/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Exemption, Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 754/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

ACIT (E)- Circle - 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Board of Accreditation, New Delhi

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

ITA 9162/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 201Section 211

accreditation fees from various organizations. The assessee’s activities falls under last limb of section 2(15) and hit by the proviso to section 2(15).” 2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the Assessment Order are that the assessee filed return declaring Nil income on 30/09/2016 ... various organizations, thus the assessee’s activities falls under last limb of section 2(15) of the Act and hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 9. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material on record. The Ld. CIT(A) while allowing

Pioneer Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 179/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Bagchi, D.R

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

relying on the above judgment held that the word "incidental" as appearing in section 11(4A) can be interpreted in light of proviso to section 2(15) so as to mean that the activity should be conducted actually in the course of achieving the GPU object, without realising that ... trust. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the appellant is engaged in educational activities and proviso to section 2(15) which is applicable only where the object is "General Public Utility" cannot be invoked The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend

Kakatiya Sangham, Tanuku vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kakatiya Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-348 Ward-1 Bypass Road (Chivatam) Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaatk7209H] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) Dated 25.05.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 23.09.2014 With The Delay Of 183 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

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

running a marriage hall is in the nature of advancement of any other object of general public utility, but, as per the proviso to section 2(15), the receipts are to be taxed as per the ceiling limits automatically, once the total receipts exceed Rs.25,00,000/-, irrespective ... assessee filed paper book and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The assessee submitted that the first proviso to section 2(15) comes into play only when they are received for a cess or fee which are revenue in nature and routed through Profit and Loss Account

Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India Chhattisgarh, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

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

ITA 47/RPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rpr/2020 The Confederation Of Real Estate Vs Cit Exemption, Developers Association Of India Bhopal Chhattisgarh Pan No. :Aahat 8139 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, Dated 31.12.2019. In This Appeal Following Grounds Are Raised:- “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Grossly Erred To Deny Registration To The Appellant U/S 12Aa. 2. That Other Ground Shall Be Pressed At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)

helping and working for commercial activities of its members. The services rendered are definitely commercial in nature and the definitely hit proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the society is considered as engaged for the benefit of one group or class of the people i.e. Builders