“Section 2(15)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(15)1,405 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(15) is 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141), cited in 706 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(15)

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises

298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court

706

citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

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.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court

328

citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT

101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court

323

citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court

270

citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

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.

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT

372 ITR 699 · 2015 · Supreme Court

152

citing judgments

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

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.

Judgments citing Section 2(15)

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

covered by fourth limb of definition of Charitable Purpose i.e. Advancement of any other object of General Public Utility' laid down in section 2(15) of the Act and the Appellant being engaged in carrying out business was not eligible for exemption. Since the order passed by Ld. Commissioner ... receipt of sums in the nature of 'cess' during assessment years 2016-17 and 2017- 18 and were covered under 4th limb of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility and since the major receipts of the assessee were 'cess

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

charging provision is Section 3 which levies income-tax, as only one tax, on the 'total income ' of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount ... charging provision is section 3 which levies income-tax, as only one tax, on the 'total income ' of the assessee as defined in section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount

Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen Corporation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 603/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramaharashtra Ex-Servicemen Cit(Exemption), Pune Corporation Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Raigad Building, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aadcm4072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 2(15)

cannot convert a charitable activity into a commercial activity. This position is recognized by the statue itself in second limb of Explanation to Section 2(15), a specific reference made is to the receipt of such fees from trade, commerce and business, and a further monetary limit ... taking up suitable employment. This is surely an activity of general public utility, and, therefore, covered by the definition of ‘charitable purposes’ under section 2(15). The true test for deciding whether an activity is business activity is (i) whether the said activity undertaken with a profit motive

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

necessary inquires and verification before allowing exemption u/s 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 since the Appellant company was hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the income tax act, 1961 for AY 2017-18 to AY 2019-20. Looking into the facts & circumstances of your Appellant ... note on activities carried on by NPCI and explanation as to why the activities of the trust is not hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the income tax act, 1961" were already raised by the Ld. AO in his notices dated 29/06/2021 & 12/11/2021 during the course of assessment

Endocrine and Breast Surgery Foundation, Chandigarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 245/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Such Rejection. It Was Also Contended That Such Action Is Violative Of The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bhasin and Shri K.B. Sood, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)

engaged in carrying out genuine charitable activities in the field of medical relief, which fall squarely within the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ under section 2(15) of the Act. It was submitted that the activities undertaken by the assessee are directed towards providing medical assistance to the needy and underprivileged

Endocrine and Breast Surgery Foundation, Chandigarh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 244/CHANDI/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Such Rejection. It Was Also Contended That Such Action Is Violative Of The Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bhasin and Shri K.B. Sood, CA’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)

Punjab Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board, Chandigarh vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1126/CHANDI/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1126/Chandi/2024 Punjab Heritage & Tourism Promotion Board Cit (Exemptions) C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan. Sco 823-824,Sector 22-A Sector 17-E Vs. Chandigarh-160022. Chandigarh-160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaatp-6562-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) -Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Cancellation Of Registrations U/S 12A As Well As U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(I) Vide Order Dated 04-11-2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Learned Cit(E) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Initiating Proceedings For Cancellation Of Registration U/S 12A & Observing That Assessee Had Committed A Specified Violation As Defined In Section 12Ab(4)(Ii). 2. That The Learned Cit(E) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Cancelling The Registration U/S 12A Of The Assessee As Per Provisions Of Section 12Ab(4)(Ii) Of The Act. 3. That The Learned C1T(E) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Cancelling The Registration U/S 12A With Retrospective Effect From Ay 2010-11 Onwards.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 148ASection 2(15)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

P Y C Hindu Gymkhana, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1321/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

less than 20% of the gross receipts of Rs.5,89,43,944/- assessee’s case falls under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and the alleged receipts should not be considered as receipts for carrying out the activity in the nature of Trade, Commerce or Business. Reference ... Business activity and therefore Principle of Mutuality is not applicable. For dealing with this issue we will first go through the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act which reads as under : “(15) “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, [yoga,] medical relief, "[preservation of environment (including water

Gosal Sagar Helping Hand Foundation, Jabalpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Exemption, Bhopal

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

ITA 20/JAB/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2025-26 Gosal Sagar Helping Hand Foundation, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Bhopal 44, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur-482001 Pan:Aagag6146G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mujaid Ansari, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Refusing To Accept The Application Of The Assessee In Form No. 10Ab For Grant Of Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Appellant, Gosal Sagar Helping Hands Foundation, Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant', Is Aggrieved By The Order Dated 23/12/2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption [Cit(Exemption)] - Bhopal, Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Respondent', Rejecting The Application For Permanent Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant, Incorporated On 02/11/2020, Obtained Provisional Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In Form 10Ac On 28/11/2021. Pursuant To This, The Appellant Duly Filed Form 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of The First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act On 13/06/2024, With The Intent Of Securing Permanent Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. 3. However, The Respondent Has Rejected The Application Contending That "The Assessee Society Has Failed To Substantiate His Claim Of Alleged Charitable Activities With Sufficient Documentary Evidences As Sought Vide The Aforesaid Letter Issued By This Office. It Is Also Found That After Giving Sufficient Opportunity The Assessee Has Failed To Furnish Point Wise Complete Information As Per Original

For Appellant: Sh. Mujaid Ansari, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR

Section 80G(5)

activities. It was submitted that once the institution was registered under section 12AB and its activities conformed to the definition under section 2(15), there exists a strong presumption in favour of the genuineness of its charitable nature, unless rebutted by cogent evidence. In the present case, no such contrary

Meera Twinkle Sevabhavi Sanstha, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 2606/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2473 & 2606/Pun/2024 Meera-Twinkle Sevabhhavi V The Commissioner Of Sanstha, S Income Tax-Exemption, S No.127/3B/2, Flat No.101, Pune. Kamlesh Society, Nr.Zala Society, Karve Road, Pune – 411038. Pan: Aajam9285D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla – Cit Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.09.2024 & 15.03.2024 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat The Appeal In Ita

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

No.2473/PUN/2024. 4. It has been observed by ld.CIT(E) in the order that activities of the Assessee are not charitable as defined under section 2(15) of the Act, and these activities are not as per the objects of the Assessee Society. Assessee is a society registered

Meera-Trinkle Sevabhavi Sanstha, Pune vs. CIT- Exemption, Pune

ITA 2473/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025

Section 124(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

that the activities carried on by the assessee are of charitable nature and come within the definition of charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the learned CIT on this issue is reversed. Having stated so, we are of the view that

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Panvel, Panvel

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Clg Universal Foundation, Jodhpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

ITA 280/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)

allegations were duly explained before the revenue authorities. The objects of the assessee are genuine and in conformity with the requirements of Section 2(15). The Ld. CIT(E) himself had no adverse finding regarding the charitable objects or the identity of the trust. Therefore, rejection of registration merely

Clg Universal Foundation, Jodhpur vs. CIT ( Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

ITA 227/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)

Clg Universal Foundation, Jodhpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

ITA 192/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)