“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)

The Mysore City Police Welfare Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Mysore

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

ITA 1548/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

deleted. 3. Without prejudice to above, the Hon'ble CIT[A] further erred in not appreciating that the Proviso to the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act not at all applicable to the nature of activity of the appellant and therefore addition thus made liable ... additions were made on account of change in character of receipt from capital to revenue or on account of violation of Proviso to Section 2(15) and thus Order of assessment suffers from ambiguity and addition made thereby liable for deletion. . 5. For the above and other grounds that

Mysore City Police Welfare Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Mysore

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

ITA 1547/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

Audit Bureau of Circulations, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6393/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 11Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

denial of claim for exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the reasons assigned for doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities failed to appreciate that, the amended provisions of section 2(15) do not change the character or exempt status of the Assessee. l(c) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kammavari Sangham, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1429/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

benefit of deduction under section 11 to the assessee by holding that the assessee cannot be regarded as existing for charitable purposes under section 2(15) of the Act. The AO also made a reference to the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Queen’s Education ... called capitation fees has been interpreted by the AO as an act which will go against the definition of charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. In this regard, the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the conclusions of the AO are without any material and that

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle- 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Kammavari Sangham, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1428/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore vs. M/S. Kammavari Sangham, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1427/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

M/S Kuchalambal Charities, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2528/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 22Section 56

furniture, electricity etc which would show that the substantial objects of the Appellant-trust were charitable in nature to which the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act would apply. 2 M/s.Kuchalambal Charities. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the proviso to Section 2(15 ... view that the activities of the assessee falls under the last limb, namely, “any other object of general public utility” under proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act. Since the assessee was charging fees for letting out the kalyana mandapa and it was done on a commercial basis

Dy. CIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 4657/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25

u/s.12AA but at the same time directing the AO toverify and determine the activities of the assessee that are hit by proviso to section 2(15) ofthe Act for applying provisions of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act. and uninfluenced by theprima facie finding as recorded earlier ... this challenges was upheld by acoordinate bench of this Tribunal, but with the rider that "we would like to clarify that due toamended section 2(15) of 1961 Act, the assessee shall not be entitled to claim tax exemption u/s.11 and 12 of 1961 Act if the activities

Dy. CIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 4656/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25

Dy. CIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 4655/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25

Navi Mumbai Sports Association, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) II (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7710/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

assessee agitates denial of exemption under 2 ITAs 6160, 6161 &7710/Mum/2019 section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by applying the provisions of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and in the alternative, if at all the assessee trust is held as a mutual concern, the income computed ... section 11(4A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and as a consequence, exemption under section 11 was denied by applying the Proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 5. When appealed against, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the order of the assessing officer by holding that the activities

Navi Mumbai Sports Association, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E)-II (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6160/MUM/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 916/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bharat Diamond Bourse, Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 2358 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.K Sinha &For Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon, DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 254Section 263

activity of handling, carting, custom expenses etc., which exceeded threshold limit of ₹25 lakh, the assessee was hit by the amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act i.e. advancement of any other object of general public utility in the nature of trade and commerce, and therefore, he assessed ... Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits after considering the activity of the assessee that are hit by the amended definition of section 2(15) of the Act and accordingly decide the issue of tax exemption u/s 11 of the Act on such activities. In assessment year

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee appeal

ITA 2469/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Breach Candy Vs. Dcit, Cc5(3) Swimming Bath Trust Room No. 1906, 19Th 66, Bhulabhai Desai Floor, Air India Bldg, Road, Breach Candy, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0133F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah & Shri.Mahesh Akhade. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Passed U/Sec144 R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Act (A.Y.2014-15) & U/Sec 143(3)R.W.S147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (A.Y.2015-16). Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical & Inter Connected, Hence Are Clubbed, Heard & Consolidated Order Is Passed.

For Appellant: Shri.Rajeev Waglay Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dilip Kumar Shah &

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Bombay Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Mumbai vs. The ITO (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

Appeal is disposed off in terms of the aforesaid directions

ITA 1614/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1614/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer Industry, (Exemption)-1(1), Vs. Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, Room No. 508, 5Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Piramal Chambers, Balla Ballard Estate, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400012 Pan : Aabcb2270M

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250Section 28Section 44A

income, the Appellant contended that its activity were charitable in nature and were not affected by the amendment to the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2008. Further, the Appellant reserved its right to claim exemption u/s 11 of the Act. In the assessment

M/S. Zilla Nirmiti Kendra Uttara Kannada, Karwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2069/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2015-16 M/S. Zilla Nirmiti Kendra Vs. Acit (Exemptions), Uttara Kannada, Circle – 1, 1St Floor, Uttara Kannada, Mangaluru. Karwar. Pan : Aaaaz 0436 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)

light of the provisions of section 13(8) of the Act which provides that if the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act applies to a case, then the benefits of sections 11 and 12 will not be available to such an assessee. The provisions to section 2(15 ... defines what are charitable purpose. The proviso to section 2(15) of the Act lays down that if the objects of society are advancement of any other general public utility and if the nature of the activity carried on by such society is in the nature of trade, commerce

ITO, Exemptions Ward- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Sondhi Charitable Hospital Society, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Section 11Section 12Section 69

Grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2 and 3 challenge the denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 by invoking the proviso to section 2 (15). Since these grounds of appeal are interlinked, these are being adjudicated together. 4.1.1 The Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, has referred ... which has been held to show clear motive to incentivise only those doctors who convert outpatients to inpatients. After discussing the provisions of section 2 (15) as also the meanings of the words trade, business and commerce, the Assessing Officer held that that the assessee has receipts arising

DCIT(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Nehru Centre, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7461/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

For Appellant: Shri Dilip ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Dilipkumar Shah

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

Assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer analysed the objects of the assessee as given in the memorandum and the definition of charitable purpose in the section 2(15) of the Act in the following table: Relevant Charitable purpose Sr. mentioned in section 2(15) Object as given in memorandum ... profit basis Public utility calculated to advance and achieve the above objects 3 Nehru Centre Relevant Charitable purpose Sr. mentioned in section 2(15) Object as given in memorandum No and if any actual activity undertaken 5. Doing all such other lawful things as are No systematic education by normal

Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority, Hapur vs. ACIT, Exemption Cirlce, Ghaziabad

ITA 4125/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

allowed to the assessee-authority. Assessee-authority claimed that its prima facie activity, appearing to fall within the ambit of proviso to section 2(15) make it ineligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. However, Assessee Authority claimed that it is not working for profit and there ... profit, there is no question of taxing the same. Lower Revenue Authority, declining the contention of the assessee, invoked the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and proceeded to hold that assessee is not entitled for registration u/s. 12A of the Act being engaged in the activities

All India Liquid Bulk Impoerters & Exporters Asssociation, Mumbai vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25

without seeking to make profits for its members. 10. Now, we have gone through the amended definition of the term 'charitable purpose' under section 2(15) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1 April 2009, reads as under: "charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education , medical ... except for the addition of the words "not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit" at the end. Section 2(15) read as under: 'charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving