← 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 Jewellers and Diamond Traders Association, Madras vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)

whether the quantum from these receipts, and other such receipts are within the limit prescribed by the sub-clause (ii) to proviso to section 2(15). If they are within the limits, AEPC would be - for that year, entitled to claim benefit as a GPU charity” 9. Further

Advantage India, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi

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

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

cancel the registration already granted u/s 11 to a charitable institution merely on the ground that the cut-off specified in the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is exceeded in a particular year without there being any change in the nature of activities of the institution

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

earlier assessment order for AY. 2016-17 & 2017-18, the AO proceeded to hold that the assessee‟s case is covered by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and thereby rejected the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act and whole of income amounting ... aforesaid facts the assessee trust has claimed benefits available under section 11 & 12 of the Act. However, the AO by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and by relying upon the assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 denied the claim of exemption under section

Humana People to People India, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5506/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Humana People To People India, Vs. Dcit, Circle Exempt 1(1), 111/9Z, Kishangarh Village, Delhi Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi, Pin: 1100 02 Delhi-1100 70 Pan :Aaach9111L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

assessee was asked to provide calculation of the interest income and commission income charged on amount of loan and to justify the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act should not be applied. Reply of Assessee was received on 14.12.2019. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated ... appear to be engaged in 'charitable activity'. iv) The AO places reliance on Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19/12/2008 for application of Proviso to section 2(15). v) AO relied on certain cases for coming to the conclusion that micro- finance activities which are carried on by the assessee

Shree Balaji Sewa Trust, Prashant Vihar vs. CIT Exemption Delhi

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

ITA 5791/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 80G

assessee to claim benefit under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act unless the case of assessee is specifically hit by the Proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act, which is not the case here. The Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act would not get attracted merely

ACIT E Circle-1(1) New Delh, Delhi vs. Jeen Foundation, Delhi

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed

ITA 4118/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

activities of the Appellant being charitable in nature cannot be doubted and the Id. AO could not establish any violation of proviso to section 2(15) r.w. section 13(8) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act by the appellant is not justified

ACIT (E) Circle-1(1) New Dehi, Delhi vs. Jeen Foundation, Delhi

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed

ITA 4117/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25

activities of the Appellant being charitable in nature cannot be doubted and the Id. AO could not establish any violation of proviso to section 2(15) r.w. section 13(8) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act by the appellant is not justified

Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seva Sahayak Mandal, Valsad vs. CIT(Exmeption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 396/SRT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 396/Srt/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) (Hybrid Hearing) Rotary Shaishnik Tabibi Seav Vs. Cit(Exemption) Sahayak Mandal Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Ayakar Vai – Bhilad, At Post Sarigam Bhavan (Vejalpur), Prahalad Nagar, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Valsad – 396170 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahts6053N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi kant Gupta, Ld.CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)

violations of conditions specified under section 12AB(4) explanation clause(a) to clause(e), 13(1) clause (a) to (c). 1 proviso to section 2(15) or any action has been taken in your case by the department for any default under these provisions or any action has been taken

Monkombu Aundi Iyer Educational and Charitable Trust, Idukki vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Kochi

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

ITA 911/COCH/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 80G

trust undertakes any business activity, it shall comply strictly with the conditions laid down under section 11(4A) read with proviso to section 2(15). 3. Aggrieved by the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal at the time of hearing ld. AR stated that the impugned order

Bigala Krishna Murthy Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad

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

ITA 11/HYD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.11/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2024-25) M/S. Bigala Krishna Murthy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. (Exemption), Hyderabad. Foundation, Hyderabad. Pan:Aakcb1687M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M. Venkatram Reddy, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Bigala Krishna Murthy Foundaton (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(E)”), Dated 24.10.2024 For The A.Y. 2024-25. Ita No.11/Hyd/2025 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Venkatram ReddyFor Respondent: : Shri Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Court." Hence, the activities of the Appellant cannot be held to be Commercial in nature and are not in violation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 8. The Ld. CIT did not consider the following comparable institutes that have been registered and are listed

M/S. Innovative Micrfinance for Poverty Alleviation & Community Transformation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1161/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1161/Chny/2025

Section 11Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Organisation for Rehabilitation of Blind in Trichy, Tiruchirapalli vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Tiruchirapalli

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 771/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:771/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Organisation For Rehabilitation Of The Income-Tax Officer, Blind In Trichy, Vs. Exemption Ward, Tiruchirappalli. Racquet Court Lane, Near Central Bus Stand Junction, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. [Pan:Aaato-1690-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessee would fall under the category of “advancement of any other object of general public utility” in section 2(15) and accordingly proviso to section 2(15) applies, wherein if the charitable purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility, it ceases to be a charitable purpose ... would fall under the realm of commercial activities and since the assessee-trust exists with the object of “general public utility”, the proviso to section 2(15) would be applicable, thus, disentitling the assessee from the claim of exemption u/s.11. 8. We have heard the rival contentions perused the grounds

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 171/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

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. 4.3 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso ... before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, he upheld the order of the Ld. AO holding that by virtue of first proviso to section 2(15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 170/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

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. 4.3 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso ... before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, he upheld the order of the Ld. AO holding that by virtue of first proviso to section 2(15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions Cirlce-1, Bengaluru

ITA 169/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

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. 4.3 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso ... before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, he upheld the order of the Ld. AO holding that by virtue of first proviso to section 2(15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 1283/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

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. 4.3 On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso ... before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. Accordingly, he upheld the order of the Ld. AO holding that by virtue of first proviso to section 2(15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions

Shri Vidhyasagar Sant Nivas Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 243/SRT/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)

conditions outlined in section 12AB(4) explanations, clauses (a) to (e), section 13(1) clauses (a) to (c), or the first proviso to section 2(15). Furthermore, no actions have been taken I.T.A No. 242 & 243//SRT/2025 3 Shri Vidhyasagar Sant Nivas Trust vs. CIT(E) by the department regarding ... been made of conditions specified under section 12AB(4) explanation, clause(a) to clause(e),13(1) clause (a) to (c), Ist proviso to section 2(15) and No any action has been taken by the department for any default under these provisions or for any other law in force

Shri Vidhyasagar Sant Nivas Trust, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 242/SRT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Bijayananda Pruseth (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)

conditions outlined in section 12AB(4) explanations, clauses (a) to (e), section 13(1) clauses (a) to (c), or the first proviso to section 2(15). Furthermore, no actions have been taken I.T.A No. 242 & 243//SRT/2025 3 Shri Vidhyasagar Sant Nivas Trust vs. CIT(E) by the department regarding ... been made of conditions specified under section 12AB(4) explanation, clause(a) to clause(e),13(1) clause (a) to (c), Ist proviso to section 2(15) and No any action has been taken by the department for any default under these provisions or for any other law in force

Nritya Samsrti, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1064/CHNY/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1064/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: Na V. Nritya Samsrti, Commissioner Of Income No.68/160, Big Street, Tax(Exemption), Triplicane, Chennai Chennai-600 005. [Pan: Aadtn4295P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Ashwini Vaidialingam प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 : घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025

For Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 2(15)

that Section 2(15) must be construed liberally in the context of its whole intent and purport. The purport of the first proviso to Section 2(15) is not to exclude entities which are essentially for charitable purpose but are conducting some activities for a nominal consideration

Kongu Welfare Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1298/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1298/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kongu Welfare Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.2/1, Vijayapuram Iind Street, Exemptions Ward 1, Chinnasalem – Tk, Villipuram, Chennai. Villupuram 606 201. [Pan:Aactk2793E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mudit Bohra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Bohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

from the activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for any consideration as referred to in proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Since the assessee could not produce the registration under section 12A of the Act or approval under section