← All Phrases

“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)

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)

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 u/s.11 ... 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

Society on Promothi Activation & Research for Scientific Social Helps, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

ITA 4549/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 80G(5)(iii)

194C on the payment made to the assessee trust. Thus it has failed to prove that activities for charitable purpose, as mentioned in section 2(15) of IT Act, are actually being undertaken by it. 4. In light of the above, the application filed in Form 10AB for grant ... holding that the assessee failed to prove that activities for charitable purpose as mentioned in section 2(15) of the Act were actually undertaken by it. 4. Against the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the following grounds of appeal: “That under the facts and circumstances

Society on Promotion Activation and Research for Scientific Social Helps, New Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), New Delhi

ITA 4548/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 80G(5)(iii)

194C on the payment made to the assessee trust. Thus it has failed to prove that activities for charitable purpose, as mentioned in section 2(15) of IT Act, are actually being undertaken by it. 4. In light of the above, the application filed in Form 10AB for grant ... holding that the assessee failed to prove that activities for charitable purpose as mentioned in section 2(15) of the Act were actually undertaken by it. 4. Against the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the following grounds of appeal: “That under the facts and circumstances

M/S Rishbhanchal Charitable Trust, Agra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 44/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH

M/S Rishbhanchal Chairitable Trust, Agra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 43/LKW/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH

Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

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

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

petitioner. The funds were misused by the president and his family members of the petitioner. 20. The expression "charitable purpose" is defined in Section 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961. It is of inclusive nature as revealed in the language. Earlier the words "the advancement of any other object

Prashant Kothari, Singapore vs. CIT A (57) Mumbai, Office of Commissioner of Appeals Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of

ITA 5391/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2016-17
Section 250

under this sub-section does form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Therefore

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 ... then merely because some incidental income is being generated, that will not dis entitle the trust t claim exemption u/s 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act. 7. India Trade Promotion Hon’ble Delhi The Hon’ble High Court reading Organization vs. DIT(E) High Court down

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 ... then merely because some incidental income is being generated, that will not dis entitle the trust t claim exemption u/s 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act. 7. India Trade Promotion Hon’ble Delhi The Hon’ble High Court reading Organization vs. DIT(E) High Court down

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 ... 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 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 ... 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)

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 ... 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

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

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 ... 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

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Bandra Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2703/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 56

Charitable Trust or Institution has been provided a special fiction of law for income and application of income. These operate within section 2(15), 2(24) (iia), 11, 12, 13, etc. of the Income Tax 15 ITA No.2703/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2016-17 Centre For The Study Of Social Change

Haryana State Remote Sensing Application Centre, Hissar vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

similar factual circumstances, the Tribunal granted registration under Section 12A by holding that the assessee’s activities are educational and charitable under Section 2(15) of the Act. That decision has not been overturned and continues to hold the field. The AR argued that the Ld. CIT(E) failed

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 ... than 20% of the limit prescribed in Section 2(15) of the Act :- 3 -: 4. The Ld Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee vehemently contested these findings and submitted that the analysis of receipts by the CIT(E) was incorrect both in law and in fact. It was argued that

Meenakshi Foundation, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central 3, New Delhi

ITA 3952/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar, Yadav, CIT DR
Section 10Section 12(1)Section 127Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 153A

assessment order, the AO has specifically mentioned that the objects of the society appears to be charitable in nature within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. In this regard para 4 and 5 of the assessment order for AY 2015-16 (Refer page ... also u/s 10(23C(v) of the Act, The object of the society appear to be charitable in nature within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. 5) During the under consideration, the society was running senior secondary school in the name of Meenakshi Public School and Mecnakshi

Sai Seva Sansthan, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 751/LKW/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Sai Seva Sansthan, Kanpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 750/LKW/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 36(1)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL