“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)

M/S. Raya Naik Memorial Gowshala Trust, Kajubag Karwar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Bangalore, Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road, Bangalore

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

ITA 1920/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: ---

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)

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

assessee, namely maintenance and protection of cattle and allied welfare activities, fall squarely within the definition of “charitable purpose” under section 2(15) of the Act and are carried out without any profit motive. 8.5 With regard to the objection relating to low fodder expenditure, the Ld. AR submitted that

Abhinav Foundation, Amravati vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2293/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2292 & 2293/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Abhinav Foundation, V The Commissioner Of C/O.Ashish Manohar Dagwar, S. Income Ward No.54, In Front Of Gupta Tax(Exemptions), Pune. Chal Daroga Plot Rajapeth, Amravati – 444601. Pan: Aakta3562H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad A Shah Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting The Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12Ab & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 11.09.2025 & 16.09.2025 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together And

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 36ASection 4ASection 80G

were admittedly filed before ld.CIT(E). Providing financial help to needy students for their education is a Charitable Activity as defined 4 in section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The said activity is as per ITA Nos.2292 & 2293/PUN/2025 [A] the objects of the trust. In these facts

Abhinav Foundation, Amravati vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2292/PUN/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 36ASection 4ASection 80G

Yashwantrao Chavan Centre (Previously Know As Yashwantrao Chavan Pratishthan), Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2705/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 22

objects and activities of the assessee-trust are 'Education' and 'Relief to the Poor', which fall squarely within the charitable purposes defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in incorrectly assuming and concluding that the trust's objects fall under the residual limb ... facts by upholding the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by misapplying the first proviso to Section 2(15) and assessing business income at Rs. 2,08,07,342/-. The CIT(A) failed to consider binding judicial precedents, including the decisions

Yashwantrao Chavan Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2661/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 22

Yashwantrao Chavan Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption(-2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2660/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 2(15)Section 22

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

2) r.w.s. 147 of the Act furnished only issues as per the reasons recorded for reopening stating that “to invoke provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and to deny exemption under section 11 of the Act”. Further, he referred to page 93 of the paper book and submits ... submits that the assessee filed detailed response on 20.06.2016 including the objects constituted with main limbs of charitable purpose specified under section 2(15) of the Act and referred to page 71 and 75 of the paper book. He submits that the assessee also 6 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 furnished

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2014-15,

ITA 1669/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

2) r.w.s. 147 of the Act furnished only issues as per the reasons recorded for reopening stating that “to invoke provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and to deny exemption under section 11 of the Act’. Further, he referred to page 93 of the paper book and submits ... submits that the assessee filed detailed response on 20.06.2016 including the objects constituted with main limbs of charitable purpose specified under section 2(15) of the Act and referred to page 71 and 75 of the paper book. He submits that the assessee also 6 LTA. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chiny/24 furnished

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Electric Lamp and Component Manufacturers Association of India, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemption, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant society is allowed

ITA 4309/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalelectric Lamp & Component Cit (Exemption) Manufacturers Association Of Delhi. India, Vs. (Civic Centre Minto Road, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Delhi-110002). G-8/5 Sector-11, Opposite Sfs Apartment, Rohini, Delhi-110085. Pan-Aaate0234A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Dated 30.06.2025 Passed U/S 12Ab(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ In Short) Rejecting The Registration Applied By The Assessee U/S 12A Of The Act For The Period From Assessment Years 2021-22 To 2025-26. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Society Was Incorporated On 29.06.1970 & Registered U/S 12A Of The Act In Terms Of Registration Certificate Issued On 30.09.1986. Thereafter, Assessment For Assessment Years 2013-14 & Electric Lamp & Component Manufacturers Association Of India Vs. Ito 2015-16 Were Completed On 29.03.2016 & 11.12.2017 Respectively, Wherein Assessee Was Allowed Exemption U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Was Granted Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Act For Assessment Year 2021-12 To 2023-24 Vide Order Dated 27.05.2021, Thereafter, Assessee Applied For Permanent Approval U/S 12A Which Was Rejected By Ld. Cit(E) Vide Order Dated 30.06.2025 & Further Cancel The Provisional Registration Granted From Assessment Year Onwards.

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

stated to be charitable and further there is no allegation that those objects are not falling within the purview of provisions of section 2 (15) of the Act. 25. Further coming to the various observation made by the learned CIT in his order, He referred to the various answers given ... charitable institution merely on the ground that the cut-off specified in the proviso to Page 89 of 102 section 2(15) of the Act is exceeded in a particular year without there being any change in the nature of activities of the institution. The case laws relied only prescribes

Holy Family School, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 5902/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

trade, commerce, or business for a consideration by way of renting of the hall, and was therefore hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act inserted with effect from 01.04.2009. Accordingly, it was held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section ... Circular: 6 ITA No.5902/Mum/2025 Holy Family School The Ld. AO has miserably failed to appreciate the implications and applicability of the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The implications of the said Proviso have been clearly explained by the CBDT itself in the Circular

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Motijheel, Kanpur

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

sale of properties. Besides, it is observed that the aggregate value of receipts from the activities referred to in the first proviso of section 2 (15) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts for the reason that the Ld. CI (A) has failed ... development and sale of properties, however, erroneously observed that aggregate value of receipts of the activities referred to in the first proviso of Section 2(15) of the Act. Further submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that A.O. has rightly disallowed the claim of payment

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), New Delhi

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

ITA 3331/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

certain discrepancies, which had been removed by the appellant, a) giving an undertaking that there will be no infringement of first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, b) making a declaration that no part of the income of the Foundation enures or used directly or indirectly ... determining the genuineness of the activities, w to be seen is, whether the objects of the Institution are charitable within the me of section 2(15) of the Act. It is undisputed that object of the foundati charitable in nature and activities fall within the ambit of such object clause

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 3328/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

St. Thomas Syro Malabar Catholic Church, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/KOL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

filed.” Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Institution formed to carry out charitable objects as defined in section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee was registered u/s 12AA of the Act from the A.Y. 2020-21 on 03.10.2019 vide Registration

Infosys Green Forum, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 917/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: S/Shri. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Manish Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand Kalakeri

Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)

Bangalore has erred in concluding that the activities of the Appellant do not fall within the purpose ‘preservation of environment’ specified under section 2(15) of the Act. 2.4. The learned CIT(E), Bangalore has erred in not appreciating that i) the Appellant is engaged in the activity of power ... balance and conservation of natural resources’; iii) the activity therefore qualifies to be considered under the purpose of ‘preservation of environment’ specified under section 2(15) of the Act. 2.5. The learned CIT(E), Bangalore has erred in concluding that the Appellant engages in the activity of power generation

Infosys Green Forum, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 902/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: S/Shri. Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Manish Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanand Kalakeri

Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)

Jain Social Group Hyderabad Charitable Foundation Trust, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 1173/HYD/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1173/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri Jasraj R ShrishrimalFor Respondent: MS. U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

trust cannot be held as advancement of any other object of general public utility and ultimately not a charitable one as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 7 ITA.No.1173/Hyd./2025 5.1. It is pertinent to note that the learned CIT(E) has not questioned

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exem), Circle - 2, Mumbai

ITA 4324/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

grossly erred in holding that the activities of the Appellant being CBP, MDP and Research & Consultancy, are in violation of Section 2(15) and Section 11(4A) of the Act, falling within the definition of 'Specified Violation' under clause (b) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Income ... service training programmes conducted by the assessee in Construction and Construction Management cannot termed as educational activities for charitable purposes as defined under section 2(15) of the Act, since the “education” for the purpose of section 2(15) of the Act means education in its scholastic sense of structured