“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)

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 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

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

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 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

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

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

ITA 3791/MUM/2023[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

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

Section 11Section 126Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 3

Spandan Foundation, Coimbatore vs. CIT Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 160/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

therefore even if trust is considered for advancement of general public utility, it exceeded the threshold of 20% laid down in proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The Ld CIT(E) has further observed that surplus alone for the year ending 31.03.2023 was Rs. 45.8% which is more ... incorrect both in law and in fact. It was argued that the 20% threshold prescribed under the proviso to section 2(15) is relevant only for the purposes of assessing the income u/s. 11 and does not constitute a ground for rejecting approval under section 80G at the time

M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd., Maharastra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

activities of assessee could not be considered as charitable in nature and thus, he directed assessment to be made afresh after considering proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal was of view that on principle of merger, it was not open for the Principal Commissioner to revise

Raebareli Development Authority, Raebareli vs. CIT-A, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 235/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 2(15)Section 3

Govt. constituted Development Authority for the welfare of people and not with any profit motive. 3. (9). Now we will examine the proviso to section 2(15) with reference to above broad scheme of the Act. From the above it is evident that the main object of the assessee ... further find that in case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samity (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, while dealing with the proviso to section 2(15), inter alia, observed that main object is to be considered and incidentally 1f some profit is made and the said profit is used

Raebareli Development Authority, Raebareli vs. CIT-A, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 234/LKW/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 2(15)Section 3

Raebareli Development Authority, Raebareli vs. CIT-A, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 233/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 2(15)Section 3

Raebareli Development Authority, Raebareli vs. CIT-Appeal, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 232/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 2(15)Section 3

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Exemp, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2074/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh CIT-DR

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

subject, the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming disallowance of exemption uls. 11 and 12 of the Act by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT (Appeals

DCIT Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 225/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

section 11(1)(d) by treating the surplus as appearing in the income and expenditure account as business income by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act As per the facts of the case the Ld. AO has treated the activities of the trust to be religious ... further submitted before us that the activities of the assessee trust are not charitable in nature in the light of proviso to section 2(15) of the IT Act. Since as per proviso the advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be a charitable purpose

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashriwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 224/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

Matha Medical Centre Trust, Kanyakumari vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 197/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 May 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:197/Chny/2025 Matha Medical Centre Trust, Cit (Exemption), Moonkivilai, Vs. Chennai. Kalpadi Post, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District – 629 204. [Pan: Aaatm-2246-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, C.I.T

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

ld.CIT(E) erred in considering the main object of providing medical services of the trust as commercial activity to apply the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. Since, the said proviso is applicable only to the activities of “advancement of any other object of general public utility” shall ... Circular No.11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 (Page Nos.105 to 108 of paper book), which reads as under: “3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’ i.e. the fourth limb of the definition of ‘charitable

Jamshedpur Management Association, Jamshedpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Patna

In the result, grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 157/RAN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jamshedpur Management Association, C.I.T.(Exemption), 18, Centre For Excellence, Ch Area Patna Vs. (East), Jamshedpur-831001 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaeaj 2108 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

assessee Institute. 3. That, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration u/s 12AA in applying proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act while all the receipts are for the education purpose. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... tracts, journals and periodicals. And to meet these objects fees has been charged from sponsoring entity and thus receipts do not attract proviso of Section 2(15). 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in rejecting the application for registration

Audyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha Poona, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune, Pmt Building

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

ITA 2135/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraaudyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha The Cit (Exemption), Poona Pune 366, Narayan Peth, Limaye Vs. Building, Laxmi Road, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaata1619H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

large and finding recorded by Commissioner that activities of assessee Society were in nature of trade, commerce or business and covered by proviso to section 2(15) was not correct finding, thus, Tribunal was justified in directing Commissioner to grant registration under section 12AA. 9 14. Referring to the decision ... large and finding recorded by Commissioner that activities of assessee Society were in nature of trade, commerce or business and covered by proviso to section 2(15) was not correct finding, thus, Tribunal was justified in directing Commissioner to grant registration under section 12AA. The relevant observations

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1261/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

under section 10(23C) also fails. Moreover, the objects of the assessee are of general public utility and hence clearly hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and hence not eligible to exemption u/s 11 also. As assessee has furnished Inaccurate particulars of income, penalty proceedings

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1260/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1259/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1258/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3819/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vipula Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 40

lieu of fees and total receipts of the assessee from such activities which are more than 20% of total receipts, hence the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act is applicable and the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act in view ... 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 activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 3. Whether