← All Phrases

“advancement of general public utility”

Charitable TrustsSection 2(15)Section 2(15)173 judgments

The decision most relied on for advancement of general public utility is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278), cited in 390 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on advancement of general public utility

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.

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
55 ITR 722 · 1965 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

An organization qualifies as having a charitable purpose if its primary object is the advancement of general public utility, even if its members receive incidental benefits. The existence of incidental non-charitable objects does not negate its charitable status.

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.

(State of T.N v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Madras
4 SCC 630 · 1989 · Reported
108
citing judgments

An activity, even if it involves sales, does not constitute "business" for tax purposes if it is an incidental part of the main activities of a public utility entity and lacks a profit motive. The presence of a profit motive is generally essential to classify an activity as business.

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.

Judgments citing advancement of general public utility

Gia India, Mumbai vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5424/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

assessee. After perusing the various details furnished by the assessee the AO held that the activities of the assessee are for advancement of general public utility in nature and is hit by the First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act,as the assessee has undertaken activities ... under section 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. The activities of the appellant are of advancement of general public utility nature and it had conducted various courses throughout the year in exchange of consideration for imparting the training to them, it is hit by first

Gia India, Mumbai vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5423/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

assessee. After perusing the various details furnished by the assessee the AO held that the activities of the assessee are for advancement of general public utility in nature and is hit by the First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act,as the assessee has undertaken activities ... under section 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. The activities of the appellant are of advancement of general public utility nature and it had conducted various courses throughout the year in exchange of consideration for imparting the training to them, it is hit by first

Gia India, Mumbai vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5422/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

assessee. After perusing the various details furnished by the assessee the AO held that the activities of the assessee are for advancement of general public utility in nature and is hit by the First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act,as the assessee has undertaken activities ... under section 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. The activities of the appellant are of advancement of general public utility nature and it had conducted various courses throughout the year in exchange of consideration for imparting the training to them, it is hit by first

Printech Park Cluster Bangalore, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1065/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Kupendra Setty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR
Section 12A

relied on the Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19/12/2008 and held that the assessee has established the society for achieving the objects of advancement of general public utility and therefore the society is a charitable institution eligible for the benefits u/s. 2(15) of the Act. The Ld.AR submitted that this ... Page 8 of 12 arrived a conclusion that the assessee trust was established with the objects of advancement of general public utility and therefore the activities carried on by the assessee trust will come under the charitable purpose. The Tribunal apart from the provision and the circular issued

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

income of the trust guideline provide the following "....(iv) your explanation regarding the above stated income of the trust with object for advancement of general public utility, within the mandatory limit mentioned in the proviso to section 2(15)". In the second notice specific query was raised with regard ... banks. Hence, its purpose is not a charitable purpose. He further observed that objects of the trust are in the domain of advancement of general public utility by taking into account the specific amendment brought by way of proviso to section 2(15) w.e.f. A.Y. 2009-10. He noted that

M/S. Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion Organisation, Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaym/S Tamil Nadu Trade Promotion C.I.T. (Exemptions), Organization, Vs. Chennai. 6-A/B/C, Mount Poonamallee Road, Nandambakkam-600089 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Aabct 6725 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 2(15)Section 25Section 8

that the appellant being a Non-profit company registered u/s 25 of the Companies Act 1956 with its primary objective being the advancement of general public utility through promotion of Indian industry, trade and enhancement of its global competitiveness, is covered by the first proviso to Section ... collecting money by permitting the persons to put up hoardings. All these activities cannot be said to be for "charitable purposes for advancement of "general public utility. The words "not involving the carrying out of any activity for profit was removed from the main Section and the proviso was inserted

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

deny the benefit of section 11 to the assessee trust on the premise that since the assessee trust is engaged in the advancement of general public utility and is charging fee in relation to the services rendered to trade, commercial etc. it is not entitled to the benefit under section ... finality. The AO in A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 has taken a diverse view that the assessee is pursuing the activity of advancement of general public utility and is in activity of trade, commerce or business of charging fee for services, the assessment order passed

Dr K R Shroff Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 769/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

submitted that the activity of the Trust was squarely covered in the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ as it was working for the advancement of general public utility in the field of education. 17. On the issue of denial of exemption under Section 11 & 12 of the Act by invoking provisions

ACIT (Exemption) Circle 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Dr K R Shroff Foundation, Ahmedabad

ITA 1205/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

ITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 ACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation Page 1 of 24 IN THE

Shri Dasalad Gyati Samast Kalol, Panchmahal vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 915/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh CIT. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

trust and disregarding the activities carried on by it which conclusively proved that the trust was established and carrying on for the advancement of general public utility and as such it was within the ambit of Sec. 2(15) of the Act. 3.3 The Id. CIT(Exem), has grievously erred

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)

concluded the applicant trust is not actually engaged in any charitable activities and neither not covered under the limb 'Advancement of General public utility' nor under 'Education' as defined section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 5. Conclusion: As per the second 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 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

increased to much higher levels. ITA Nos.6894, 7072 & 7073/Del/2018 E.2. It is held that though GS1 India is in fact, involved in advancement of general public utility, its services are for the benefit of trade and business, from which they receive significantly high receipts. In the circumstances, its claim

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

increased to much higher levels. ITA Nos.6894, 7072 & 7073/Del/2018 E.2. It is held that though GS1 India is in fact, involved in advancement of general public utility, its services are for the benefit of trade and business, from which they receive significantly high receipts. In the circumstances, its claim

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

increased to much higher levels. ITA Nos.6894, 7072 & 7073/Del/2018 E.2. It is held that though GS1 India is in fact, involved in advancement of general public utility, its services are for the benefit of trade and business, from which they receive significantly high receipts. In the circumstances, its claim

Usha Aggarwal Trust, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5046/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshusha Aggarwal Trust, Vs. Ito, 4792/23, Daryaganj, Ward-Exemption (1(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatd8944N Assessee By : Shri B. K. Anand, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri B. K. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

conditions prescribed u/s 11 to 13 of the Act. The assessee trust was established vide deed dated 18.02.2005 with the objects of advancement of general public utility, providing financial assistance to students and educational institution by way of scholarship and grants and also relief to poor by way of medical

Kai Dr Subhashrao Dhaknebahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2209/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the I. T. Act when the Trust exists solely for education and advancement of general public utility and not for profit. The trust may please be registered under section 12AB rws 12A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the I. T. Act when the Trust exists solely for education and advancement of general public utility and not for profit and accordingly rejecting application for registration U/s. 80G(5). The trust may please be granted registration

Kai Dr Subhashrao Dhaknebahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, Jalna vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2208/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Mahendra BhalgatFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G

rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the I. T. Act when the Trust exists solely for education and advancement of general public utility and not for profit. The trust may please be registered under section 12AB rws 12A. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances ... rejecting the application for registration under section 12AB of the I. T. Act when the Trust exists solely for education and advancement of general public utility and not for profit and accordingly rejecting application for registration U/s. 80G(5). The trust may please be granted registration

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)

profit generated from the activities towards any charitable activities such as relief of poor, education, medical relief and other objects of advancement of general public utility and such surplus is being invested in fixed deposits in order to earn interest income was also not correct in as much

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)

profit generated from the activities towards any charitable activities such as relief of poor, education, medical relief and other objects of advancement of general public utility and such surplus is being invested in fixed deposits in order to earn interest income was also not correct in as much

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)

profit generated from the activities towards any charitable activities such as relief of poor, education, medical relief and other objects of advancement of general public utility and such surplus is being invested in fixed deposits in order to earn interest income was also not correct in as much