“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

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

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)

same. The development functions carried out by the assessee for the entire Mumbai Metropolitan Region falls within the ambit of the term ‘advancement of general public utility’ i.e. charitable purpose as contained in section 2(15) of the Act. ITA Nos. 3791/Mum/2024 and Others Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ... Kurla Complex/Wadala Truck Terminal, e Construction of Skywalks. 2.3. The aforesaid projects are for the benefit of the general public or for advancement of general public utility and falls within the ambit of "charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Further, the activities conducted by assessee

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)

same. The development functions carried out by the assessee for the entire Mumbai Metropolitan Region falls within the ambit of the term 'advancement of general public utility’ i.e. charitable purpose as contained in section 2(15) of the Act. AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 2.2. In recent times, assessee ... Bandra-Kurla Complex/Wadala Truck Terminal, ● Construction of Skywalks. 2.3. The aforesaid projects are for the benefit of the general public or for advancement of general public utility and falls within the ambit of "charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Further, the activities conducted by assessee

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

same. The development functions carried out by the assessee for the entire Mumbai Metropolitan Region falls within the ambit of the term 'advancement of general public utility'i.e. charitable purpose as contained in section 2(15) of the Act. 2. 2. In recent times, assessee had undertaken several projects ... Kurla Complex/Wadala Truck Terminal, • Construction of Skywalks. 2. 3. The aforesaid projects are for the benefit of the general public or for advancement of general public utility and falls within the ambit of "charitable purpose' as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Further, the activities conducted by assessee

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)

income i.e 100% of its income earned was in the nature of commercial only and 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 ... does not ipso facto imply commercial intent. Whether the purpose and nature of such events align with charitable objectives particularly education or advancement of general public utility requires a detailed and holistic analysis. Moreover, the application of the 20% threshold under the proviso to section 2(15) has been

Trivandrum Agenda Task Force, Trivandrum vs. CIT Exemption, Kochi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 271/COCH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Trivandrum Agenda Task Force .......... Appellant Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road, Statue Trivandrum 695034 [Pan: Aabtt0113E] Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Old Raiway Station Road, Ernakulam 682018 Appellant By: Shri Thomas Jacob, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Thomas Jacob, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

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

Airport Authority of India, Regulatory bodies, etc. as contemplated u/s. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the advancement of general public utility. The appellant was originally granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act in 2023 vide order dated 24.07.2023. Subsequently the appellant applied

Model Village Trust, Delhi vs. Sh. Prakash Dubey CIT Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 3190/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12A

Charitable purposes provided in section 2(15) and adopted in aims and objects include relief of poor, education, medical relief and advancement of general public utility (PB 64-65); (iii) Confirmation that none of the objects involves any trade, commerce or business (PB 63); (iv) Declaration that income

Model Village Trust, Delhi vs. Sh. Prakash Dubey CIT Exemption, Delhi

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

ITA 3189/DEL/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025

Section 12A

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2596/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 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

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2595/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2594/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

Magadi Planning Authority, Ramnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 2593/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: D.N. Joshi & Co, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur vs. Addl.CIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2202/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

personal one. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature and are for advancement of general public utility. It is therefore clear that KDA fully qualifies the test laid down by the apex court and the jurisdictional high court

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur vs. DCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur vs. Addl.CIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E)- 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

Section 2(15)Section 45(1)Section 6

ACIT(E) vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2022] 449 ITR 1(SC) has specifically dealt with the aspects relating to the advancement of General Public Utility ("GPU") with respect to trade promotion bodies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of advancement of GPU by trade promotion ... have been increased to much higher levels. 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 for exemption

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

further argued that the Hon’ble High Court had been consistent in holding that the objects of the authority were, ‘objects for advancement of general public utility’ and that the assessee and other authorities had been carrying out the obligations mandated by the said statute. It was submitted that merely ... Development Authority was entitled for exemption under section 11 of the 1961 Act being engaged in charitable activities by pursuing objects of advancement of ‘general public utility’, it had dealt with the judgment and order passed by the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Jammu Development Authority

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

M/S Ayodhya Development Authority (Formely Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority), Lucknow vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

ITA 145/LKW/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh Mradul AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ghiyasuddin CIT(DR) & Sh.Mazahar Akram, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 58

receipts more than Rs.25 Lacs is beyond the purview of allowability of exemption under section 11, in spite of working for the advancement of general public utility. The above development authorities work like private developers and provide all facilities like private developers with a view to attract investors, so that