← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 509/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical) Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 508/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical) Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 501/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical) Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 500/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical) Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), Bengaluru

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 499/BANG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153A

ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation (Medical) Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6954/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhindian Institute Of Vs. Commissioner Of Income Banking & Finance Tax (Exemptions) (Formerly Known As The Indian Room No. 617, Piramal Institute Of Bankers) Chambers Lalbaug, Tower-I, Kohinoor City Mumbai - 400012 Commercial-Ii, 3Rd Floor, Kirol Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400070 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatt3309D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 4

nature, which leaves no apprehensions. In our view the activities would squarely be covered by the definition of "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, as these activities are meant for general public utility, i.e. whoever wants to advance his/her qualifications in the banking industry. From ... nature, which leaves no apprehensions. In our view the activities would squarely be covered by the definition of "charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, as these activities are meant for general public utility, i.c. whoever wants to advance his/her qualifications in the banking industry. From

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kanakapura Planning Authority, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 399/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and therefore hit by the first Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC ... denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the I.T.Act and irrespective of the fact that the assessee registration u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act is in force

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kanakapura Planning Authority, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 398/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and therefore hit by the first Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC ... denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the I.T.Act and irrespective of the fact that the assessee registration u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act is in force

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kanakapura Planning Authority, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 397/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and therefore hit by the first Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC ... denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the I.T.Act and irrespective of the fact that the assessee registration u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act is in force

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kanakapura Planning Authority, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 396/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and therefore hit by the first Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC ... denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the I.T.Act and irrespective of the fact that the assessee registration u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act is in force

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kanakapura Planning Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 395/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

that the activities of the assessee are in the nature of trade, commerce or business and therefore hit by the first Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5. Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC ... denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee is hit by proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the I.T.Act and irrespective of the fact that the assessee registration u/s 12AA of the I.T.Act is in force

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. B P Marine Academy, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 963/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Trust [101 ITR 234(SC)] in which it was held Page that "the sense in which the word 'education' has been used in section 2(15) is the systematic instruction, schooling or training giving to the young in preparation for the walks of life. It also converts the old course ... light of various decisions , we are of the opinion that the activities of the Assessee are covered by last limb of Section 2(15) and are akin to the activities to Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust [369 ITR 645(Bom)(2014)]. Not only that the notice for Cancellation

DCIT Tax - (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S the J.K.Trust Bombay, Mumbai

ITA 2257/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 2257/मुं/2021("न.व. 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai, Room No.608, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026. ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The J.K.Trust Bombay, Ground Floor, New Hind House, Narottam Morarjee Marg, Bellard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatt-0611-L ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Prakash R. Mane ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’ ] Dated 21/06/2021, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 104 Days. The Assessing Officer Has Filed An Application Explaining Reasons For Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Is Attributed To Covid-19 Pandemic. Taking In To 2 Consideration The Hardship Caused To The Litigants In The Extra Ordinary Circumstances The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India Taking Suo-Motu Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation Reported As 132 Taxamann.Com 123 Extended The Period Of Limitation Under General Laws Of Limitation & Special Laws. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Within The Extended Period Of Limitations, Hence, No Delay In Filing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash R. ManeFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessee on the ground that the activities carried out by the assessee do not fall within the ambit of section 2(15) of the Act after amendment to the section by Finance Act,2008. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee. Against the findings of CIT(A) Revenue carried

M/S Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations in India, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed and additions amounting to Rs

ITA 710/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Federation Of Freight Forwarders Associations, 311/313, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Opp. Dukes Factory, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aaatf0039J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(3), Piramal Chambers 4Th Floor, Dr. S.S. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Indira Adakil, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 2Section 2(15)

their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would fall under the purview of the proviso to section 2(15) owing to the principle of mutuality, organizations have dealings with non-members, their claim to be charitable organizations would now be governed ... additional conditions stipulated in the proviso to section 2 (15)." 5. AO further held as under: “4.3 Further, the assessee in its submission gives reference to provision of investment of interest within the meaning of section 11(5) of the IT Act. However, the assessee failed to pay heed

Gymnastics Sevabhavai Sanstha, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

ITA 2010/MUM/2020[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Cit Exemption, Pune Gymnastics Sevabhavi Sanstha Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Flat No. 101, Building No.4, Income Tax Office, Raunak Park, Pokharan Road, Pmt Building, Vs. No.2, Kokanipada, Thane (W) Shankar Seth Road, Mumbai-400 606 Pune- 411 037 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aactg 7323 G Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Koli, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Koli, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 15Section 2Section 2(15)

category of advancement of any other object of general public utility u/s 2(15) of the Act and therefore as per proviso to section 2(15) and for other unjustified reasons, the appellant was not entitled for and registration, which view being factually and legally incorrect, the registration ... October, 2020, holding that the object and activity claimed by the assessee are not charitable in nature in view of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. 05. The object of the assessee shows that it is set up for carrying out the activities such as preparing players

DCIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Avinash N. Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1436/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 10(38)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45Section 47

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

Income Tax Officer(Exemption) Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of India, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 974/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration and are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act?" ITA Nos.: 971 to 974/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 8 2. "Whether ... correct in ignoring the fact that the assesse is covered in the last Limb of the amended section 2(15) of the Act and with effect from 1st April 2009 onwards, the advancement of any other activities in nature of trade, business and commerce and providing the services in relation

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of Indiaf, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 973/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration and are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act?" ITA Nos.: 971 to 974/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 8 2. "Whether ... correct in ignoring the fact that the assesse is covered in the last Limb of the amended section 2(15) of the Act and with effect from 1st April 2009 onwards, the advancement of any other activities in nature of trade, business and commerce and providing the services in relation

Income Tax Officer(Exemption)Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of India, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 972/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration and are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act?" ITA Nos.: 971 to 974/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 8 2. "Whether ... correct in ignoring the fact that the assesse is covered in the last Limb of the amended section 2(15) of the Act and with effect from 1st April 2009 onwards, the advancement of any other activities in nature of trade, business and commerce and providing the services in relation

Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Physicians of India, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 143Section 2(15)Section 28

relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration and are hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act?" ITA Nos.: 971 to 974/Mum/2022 Assessment years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 Page 2 of 8 2. "Whether ... correct in ignoring the fact that the assesse is covered in the last Limb of the amended section 2(15) of the Act and with effect from 1st April 2009 onwards, the advancement of any other activities in nature of trade, business and commerce and providing the services in relation