← 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)

Y S Makhdoomi Memorial Educational Trust, Srinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 240/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Y S Makhdoomi Memorial Educational Trust, Srinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 239/ASR/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Exemption, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 756/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

major activities of the assessee are in nature of trade, commerce or business and are not charitable in nature in view of section 2(15) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that ... pursuing all these objects which may at the most can be considered as charitable objections of general public utility on which proviso to section 2(15) applies? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee

National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 755/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

major activities of the assessee are in nature of trade, commerce or business and are not charitable in nature in view of section 2(15) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that ... pursuing all these objects which may at the most can be considered as charitable objections of general public utility on which proviso to section 2(15) applies? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee

National Institute of Bank Management, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Exemption, Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 754/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Shri S. Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

major activities of the assessee are in nature of trade, commerce or business and are not charitable in nature in view of section 2(15) of the IT Act? 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that ... pursuing all these objects which may at the most can be considered as charitable objections of general public utility on which proviso to section 2(15) applies? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) is right in holding that the assessee

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr
Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

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

ACIT (E)- Circle - 2(1), New Delhi vs. National Board of Accreditation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9162/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 201Section 211

continuing supervision through inspection and charging inspection and accreditation fees from various organizations. The assessee’s activities falls under last limb of section 2(15) and hit by the proviso to section 2(15).” 2. The brief facts of the case as stated in the Assessment Order are that ... held by the A.O. that the issue whether activities incidental to carrying out the main objects was excluded from the purview of section 2(15) had been settled to rest by the amendment in the law by Finance Act, 2015. Referring to the amended proviso, it was observed that even

One World Foundation, Gurgaon vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5215/DEL/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Ms. SaritaFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

without paying attention to the fact that activities being carried by the trust for the benefit of the poor in accordance with the section 2(15) of the Act. As a matter of fact, registration of an institution under Section 12A(a) of the Act by itself is a sufficient

Pioneer Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 179/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Bagchi, D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

above judgment held that the word "incidental" as appearing in section 11(4A) can be interpreted in light of proviso to section 2(15) so as to mean that the activity should be conducted actually in the course of achieving the GPU object, without realising that the activity. referred ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the appellant is engaged in educational activities and proviso to section 2(15) which is applicable only where the object is "General Public Utility" cannot be invoked The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend

Confrere Educational Society, Noida vs. ITO (Exemption), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4464/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 250Section 251Section 56

running school in the name of “Adarsh Public School” in NOIDA. Looking to its activities for “charitable purposes” in terms of section 2(15), i.e., ‘education’ it has been granted ITA Nos.4464 & 4463/Del/2017 Confrere Educational Society vs. ITO(E) 5 registration u/s.12A by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, vide ... would not apply. 4. Thereafter, the ld. CIT (A) discussed in detail the concept and theory of ‘charitable purposes’ as defined in Section 2(15) and conditions laid down in Sections 11 to 13 for granting of benefit. The detailed discussion on provision of law has been discussed from paragraphs

Kakatiya Sangham, Tanuku vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kakatiya Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-348 Ward-1 Bypass Road (Chivatam) Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaatk7209H] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) Dated 25.05.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 23.09.2014 With The Delay Of 183 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

marriage hall is in the nature of advancement of any other object of general public utility, but, as per the proviso to section 2(15), the receipts are to be taxed as per the ceiling limits automatically, once the total receipts exceed Rs.25,00,000/-, irrespective of the fact whether ... assessee filed paper book and reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. The assessee submitted that the first proviso to section 2(15) comes into play only when they are received for a cess or fee which are revenue in nature and routed through Profit and Loss Account

Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India Chhattisgarh, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

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

ITA 47/RPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Rpr/2020 The Confederation Of Real Estate Vs Cit Exemption, Developers Association Of India Bhopal Chhattisgarh Pan No. :Aahat 8139 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal, Dated 31.12.2019. In This Appeal Following Grounds Are Raised:- “1. That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Grossly Erred To Deny Registration To The Appellant U/S 12Aa. 2. That Other Ground Shall Be Pressed At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

helping and working for commercial activities of its members. The services rendered are definitely commercial in nature and the definitely hit proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore, the society is considered as engaged for the benefit of one group or class of the people i.e. Builders

M/S Alnoor Charitable Educational Trust, Srinagar vs. Co Mmissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 17/ASR/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 2(15)Section 215Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)

case of principal Commissioner of income tax, exemption versus servants of people society 2023/147 Taxmann.com, 79 (SC) has observed that interpretation of section 2(15) had undergone a change, due to the decision of apex court in the case of PCIT exemption versus Ahmedabad, urban development authority, 2022/143 Taxmann.com ... total receipts of the previous year. In our view, the appellant trust is required to file fresh application for grant of registration under section 2(15) and consequently, the application for approval under section 80G(5) of the income tax act, 1961 before the principal Commissioner of income tax (Exemption

Iclei South Asia Group Gratuity Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/DEL/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year 2021-22 Icrw Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-59, Ground Floor, Delhi. South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Aabti3510L Assessment Year: 2020-21 Iclei South Asia Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-3, Lower Ground Floor, Delhi Green Park Extension, New Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aabti7567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Chaudhuri, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari,Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Anand Chaudhuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari,CIT,DR
Section 12ASection 25

considered opinion that the assessee’s activity falls squarely within the object of ‘advancement of general public utility’ as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Hence, apparently, the activity carried out by the ITA No.1201/Del/2022; ITA No.761/Del/2021; & assessee is a charitable activity as per section 2(15 ... dispute that the assessee’s case does not fall within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, which provides a restriction, if the charitable purpose is not for advancement of general public utility. Hence, the assessee’s case does not fall within the ambit of proviso

Icrw Group Gratuity Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/DEL/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year 2021-22 Icrw Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-59, Ground Floor, Delhi. South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Aabti3510L Assessment Year: 2020-21 Iclei South Asia Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-3, Lower Ground Floor, Delhi Green Park Extension, New Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aabti7567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Chaudhuri, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari,Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Anand Chaudhuri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari,CIT,DR
Section 12ASection 25

considered opinion that the assessee’s activity falls squarely within the object of ‘advancement of general public utility’ as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. Hence, apparently, the activity carried out by the ITA No.1201/Del/2022; ITA No.761/Del/2021; & assessee is a charitable activity as per section 2(15 ... dispute that the assessee’s case does not fall within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act, which provides a restriction, if the charitable purpose is not for advancement of general public utility. Hence, the assessee’s case does not fall within the ambit of proviso

DCIT(E) Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Natrip Implementation Society, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1617/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: PendingITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Adv & Ms. Suman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

assessee as advancement of any other object of general public utility and the same is hit by the amended proviso to Section 2(15). (iii) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, append or delete any of above grounds. DCIT Vs. Natrip Implementation Society 4. Since both the appeals ... Assessee as advancement of any other object of general public utility and held that the same is hit by amended proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act, accordingly, amount of Rs. 23,91,65,691/- being a surplus amounts and brought to tax. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Natrip Implementation Society, Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1251/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: PendingITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Adv & Ms. Suman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

assessee as advancement of any other object of general public utility and the same is hit by the amended proviso to Section 2(15). (iii) The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, append or delete any of above grounds. DCIT Vs. Natrip Implementation Society 4. Since both the appeals ... Assessee as advancement of any other object of general public utility and held that the same is hit by amended proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act, accordingly, amount of Rs. 23,91,65,691/- being a surplus amounts and brought to tax. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

DCIT(Exemp), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Institute of Marketing & Management, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7074/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)

that the objects of the assessee Society are educational in nature and hence, they fall within the meaning of ‘charitable purpose’ under Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee is a Society registered under Section 12A of the Act. 20. In view of the above facts, we uphold

Aspiring to Nuture the Smile of Humanity Ansh, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 448/JPR/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal ( Addl. CIT)
Section 12A

assessee. 7. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(E) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ In nutshell, the meaning of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is that while deciding the case where business activities are visible, the predominant object test is to be applied ... charitable activities in the present market scenario. Therefore, it is uncertain how these activities classify as charitable activities in the light of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the applicant is carrying out the activities as per its objects. Thus, the charitable nature and genuineness

Indian Institute of Banking and Finance ( Formerly Known As the Indian Institute of Bankers), Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 875/MUM/2021[2019-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2023AY 2019-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 2(15)

conducted by the Appellant are educational in nature and activities would squarely be covered by the definition of "Charitable purpose" as defined in section 2(15) of the Act. The Indian Institute Of Banking & Finance (Formerly known as The Indian Institute of Bankers ... members and that such distribution was even not possible in the case of winding-up; 8. holding that the proviso to section 2(15) is applicable to the instant case even though the activities have been considered to be educational in nature for the earlier years