← 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)

DCIT, (E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7073/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Delhi Development Authority, Vs Jcit(Exemption), Room No.205, B-Block, Vikas Range-1, New Delhi Sadan, Ina, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Central Cirlce-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Circle-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anubhav Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order

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

action of Ld.CIT(A) in denying the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act as its activities are covered under the proviso of section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee ... 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

DCIT, (E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7072/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Delhi Development Authority, Vs Jcit(Exemption), Room No.205, B-Block, Vikas Range-1, New Delhi Sadan, Ina, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Central Cirlce-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Circle-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anubhav Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order

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

action of Ld.CIT(A) in denying the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act as its activities are covered under the proviso of section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee ... 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

Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi vs. JCIT(E), Range- 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6894/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Delhi Development Authority, Vs Jcit(Exemption), Room No.205, B-Block, Vikas Range-1, New Delhi Sadan, Ina, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Central Cirlce-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit(Exemption), Vs Delhi Development Authority, Circle-1(1), B-Block, Vikas Sadan, Ina New Delhi Colony, New Delhi-110023. Pan-Aaald0031A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anubhav Goel, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 Order

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

action of Ld.CIT(A) in denying the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act as its activities are covered under the proviso of section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. It is seen that the assessee ... 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

Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Civic Centre vs. Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Memorial National Commitee, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesses is allowed

ITA 2718/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2718/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Vs M/S Sh. Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Officer(Exemption), Memorial National Committee, B- Ward-2(1), 14/A, Chatrapati Shivaji Bhawan, New Delhi Qutab Institutional Are, New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafts3397H Assessee By : Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv., Sh. Rohit Jain, Ca Sh. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057999120(1) Dated 16.11.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv., Sh. Rohit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 80G

ignoring that the assessee's activity falls under the category of Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility and first proviso to Section 2(15) is clearly applicable to it as the total receipts derived by way of income from amenities & maintenance charges, project funds, rent, parking charges ... where assesses was denied exemption on the ground that it is involved in trade, commerce or business and applied Proviso to section 2(15), The assesses, appealed against this order and CIT(A) has vide order dt. 27/08/2015 in 3 Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Memorial National Committee Appeal no. 42/2014-15

Shree Khandelwal Digambar Jain Foundation, Aurangabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed

ITA 2555/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8Section 80G

denied registration to assessee. Here, we find a strong merit in the contention raised by Ld. AR that proviso to section 2(15) of the Act defining 'charitable purpose' itself allows commerciality in the activities of assessee but upto a ceiling limit of 20%. Further, section ... section 13(8) also provides that the exemption u/s 11/12 shall be denied in that previous year only in which the proviso to section 2(15) is violated. Therefore, these provisions of law clearly show that even if any object or activity of assessee, out of various multiple objects

Shri Visha Oswal Mahajan Kharoi, Bhachau - Kutchh - Gujarat., Bhachau-Kutch-Gujarat vs. The CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 325/RJT/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Visha Oswal Mahajan Kharoi, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Room No: 609, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhachau – Kutch 370140 Bhuvan, (Vejalpur), 100 Feet Road, Anandnagar Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapts3740J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Darshak Thakkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 / 06 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. SR. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

violated. Shri visha oswal Mahajan kharoi 18. Undertaking that there will be no infringement to the First proviso to section 2(15) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 19. No other laws (other than Income-Tax) are applicable to the Trust for achievement of objectives. 20. Undertaking to the effect

Doddaballapur Planning Authority, Bangalore vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2115/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

charitable status. Therefore, AUDA is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply to disqualify it from such exemption which is not in dispute in the present case. 9.9 In conclusion, we dismiss

Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority, Delhi vs. DCIT, Exemtion Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4691/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdident & Shri Manish Agarwala.Yr. : 2014-15 Hapur Pilkhuwa Vs. Dcit Exemption Circle, Development Ghaziabad Authority, Room No. 105, Cgo C/O Kapil Goel, Complex, Advocate 1St Floor, Kamla Nehru F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Nagar, Ghaziabad Delhi – 110 085 Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Aaalh0057L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department By Shri Surender Pal Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 Order Per Mahavir Singh, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.08.2024 Passed By The Nfac, New Delhi In Relation To Assessment Year 2014-15 On The Following Grounds:- I) That Orders Of Ao & Ld. First Appellate Authority Respectively Passed U/S. 143(3) & Section 250 Are Both Invalid / Nullity & Both Deserve To Be Quashed / Set Aside For Total Want Of Application Of Mind & Being Passed In Most 1

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(34)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

reach the conclusion that the assessee was conducting its affairs on commercial lines with the profit earning motive and as such the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not attracted in this case and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided u/s. 11 of the Act. Moreover ... meaning of section 2(15) of the Act, as its object is to provide shelter to the homeless people and thus the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not attracted in this case and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore

Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle, Pune

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

ITA 190/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)

Order under Section 147 passed by the learned Assessing Officer, assessing Rs. 2.02.78.754 as income which has escaped assessment, by invoking the proviso to Section 2(15) and thereby disallowing the following: Capital expenses allowable under Section 11(1)(a) Rs. 21,16,058 15% deductible under Section ... passed by the learned Assessing Officer, assessing Rs. 2,02,78,754 as income which has escaped assessment, by invoking the proviso to Section 2(15), even while, in the Appeals against the Orders of Assessment under Section 143(3)/147, in respect of assessment years

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 2725/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Milind V. Patil, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2(15)Section 263

Ld.CIT(E) and it was noticed by him that the AO has denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and thereafter the tax has been computed in the hands of the assessee. However, while computing the business income, the assessee ... bearing ITA Nos. 4391 to 4395/Mum/2019 and ITA No. 34 & 35/Mum/2020 wherein on issue of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the appeal in the favour of the assessee. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the decision

Sreekumara Samajam, Thrissur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thrissur

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

ITA 1116/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Years: 2016-17 Sreekumara Samajam Ito, Exemption Ward, V. Thrissur Xxi/230 S Paliyamthuruth Anapuzha, Kodungallur Thrissur-680667, Kerala. Pan : Aafts2292H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Nivedita A Kamath, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr Ar. Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2025 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.11.2024 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2016–17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Society Under The Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, On 02.07.2009. It Is Also Registered Under Section 12A Of The Act With The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thrissur & Claimed To Function As A Religious & Charitable Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016–17 Declaring ‘Nil’ Income. The Assessee Was Engaged In Conducting Kuri Business & Money-Lending Business

For Appellant: Smt. Nivedita A Kamath, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Officer (AO), upon examining the records, observed that the income from business activities exceeded 20% of gross receipts. Therefore, as per the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act, the activity could no longer be treated as charitable in nature, and the trust could not avail exemption under Section

Cricketmaharashtra@Yahoo.Com, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1724/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Gujarat Cricket Association. 4 ITA No.1724/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 3.1 After considering the reply of the assessee, the Ld. AO invoked the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and held that the receipts/total income of the assessee is income received from the activities which are in the nature

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Pune vs. Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 694/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

carrying on activity in the nature of rendering services to trade, commerce or business and thus hit by the mischief of the proviso to Section 2(15) introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2009"? (ii) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal did not err in holding

The Care of Animals and Society, Rewa vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 888/IND/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jun 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 12Section 12ASection 194CSection 2(15)Section 253

exceeds 20% of total receipts in violation Page 3 of 9 The Care of Animals and Society ITA No. 888/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2025-26 to proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, it is evident that the activities carried out by the assessee is not for charitable purposes as defined

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

facts and circumstances of the case; II. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not covered by the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s.13(8) of the Page 2 of 29 ITA Nos. 240 to 242/Bang/2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 and is eligible to claim exemption ... receipts from the said activity constituted more than 25% of the revenue thereby, bringing the assessee within the purview of proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11; III. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the prior

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 241/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

facts and circumstances of the case; II. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not covered by the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s.13(8) of the Page 2 of 29 ITA Nos. 240 to 242/Bang/2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 and is eligible to claim exemption ... receipts from the said activity constituted more than 25% of the revenue thereby, bringing the assessee within the purview of proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11; III. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the prior

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA
Section 11Section 2(15)

facts and circumstances of the case; II. The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee is not covered by the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s.13(8) of the Page 2 of 29 ITA Nos. 240 to 242/Bang/2024 Income Tax Act, 1961 and is eligible to claim exemption ... receipts from the said activity constituted more than 25% of the revenue thereby, bringing the assessee within the purview of proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11; III. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing the prior

Aadya Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 11Section 12A

section 13(8) also provides that the exemption u/s 11/12 shall be denied in that previous year only in which the proviso to section 2(15) is violated. Therefore, these provisions of law clearly show that even if any object or activity of assessee, out of various multiple objects

Aadya Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(E), Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2676/DEL/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 11Section 12A

section 13(8) also provides that the exemption u/s 11/12 shall be denied in that previous year only in which the proviso to section 2(15) is violated. Therefore, these provisions of law clearly show that even if any object or activity of assessee, out of various multiple objects

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3936/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

advancement of any other object of general public utility, undertaken for a consideration and hence, hit by the mischief of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, introduced w.e.f 01.04.2009, and the amended provision applies to the assessment year under consideration, even if registration ... valid Trust in terms of section 11 to 13 of the Act, and its activities are not charitable in nature and the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable in the facts of the present case? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case