How many judgments are there on Section 10(23C)(v)?

BharatTax indexes 37 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 10(23C)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 10(23C)(v) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 10(23C)(v) of the Income Tax Act?

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT (372 ITR 699) is the decision most relied on for Section 10(23C)(v), cited in 152 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.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 10(23C)(v)?

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT (372 ITR 699) — 152 citing judgments; Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT (224 ITR 310) — 121 citing judgments; Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT (315 ITR 382) — 37 citing judgments; Queens Education Society v. CIT (231 Taxmann 286) — 18 citing judgments; CIT v. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust (230 ITR 714) — 12 citing judgments.

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(23C)(v) falls under section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 11 (Incomes not included in total income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 11 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 10(23C)(v) is Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT (372 ITR 699), cited in 152 of the 37 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 10(23C)(v)

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.

Aditanar Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT

224 ITR 310 · 1997 · Supreme Court

121

citing judgments

A charitable educational institution or trust does not lose its charitable character merely because it generates a surplus, provided its primary object remains charitable and it does not operate for profit. The assessment of charitable nature should focus on the institution's objects rather than the quantum of surplus generated.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT

315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) has no power to cancel registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act retrospectively, especially when there is no express provision in the Act for such cancellation and the order is quasi-judicial in nature.

Queens Education Society v. CIT

231 Taxmann 286 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Devradhan Madhavlal Genda Trust

230 ITR 714 · 1998 · High Court

citing judgments

Filing of the audit report in Form No. 10B with the return of income is not mandatory for claiming exemption under Section 11. If the report is filed after the return but within the period permitted by law, the exemption cannot be denied.

Association of Corporation & Apex Societies of Handlooms v. Asstt. DIT

351 ITR 287 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT-III, Pune v. Sakal Relief Fund

295 CTR 561 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

National Horticulture Board v. Chief CIT

176 Taxmann 167 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

ACIT v. Stock Exchange Ahmedabad

25 Taxmann.com 469 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 10(23C)(v)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle, Coimbatore vs. The Society of the Franciscan Servants of Mary, Salem

In the result, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld

ITA 2089/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Cumballa Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 48

Shree Sunder Nagar Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) WD 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarshree Sunder Nagar Jain V/S. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Sangh बनाम Ward – 2(3), Mtnl Building, C/O G.P. Mehta & Co. Cas Peddar Road, Mumbai–400 026, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Maharashtra Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacts3778B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhavik Chheda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO -Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 770/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Hare Ram Mandir Trust, Bhopal vs. ITO-Exemption, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 769/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Shmashan Sewa Samiti, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 594/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 594/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shmashan Sewa Samiti Ito - Ward 1(1) बनाम/ Vs. Outside Chatiwind Gate, New Cr Building Amritsar-143001 Amritsar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aasas-5377-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Rohit Kapoor Advocate A/W Shri V.S. Aggarwal (Itp) –Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [Cit(A)] Dated 29-08-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Dated 12-03-2020. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 5 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. 2. It Emerges That The Assessee Is A Charitable Society. The Cpc Considered Entire Gross Receipts As The Income Of The Assessee Denying Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(23C)(V). The Said

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor Advocate a/w ShriFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr DR

Section 10Section 143(1)

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 370/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.32 & 33/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos.: 370 & 368/Chny/2025) धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Exemptions Ward, Trichy, Thirukkovil, Vs. The Executive Officer, Swamimalai, Kumbakonam – 612 301. [Pan: Aaata-6446-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.T. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15, Vide Order Dated 20.12.2024. Since The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Trichy vs. Arulmigu Swaminatha Swami Thirukkovil, Kumbakonam

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 368/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. P. Krishna Kumar, J.C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate

Section 10Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147

Shri Digamber Jain Sengan Mandir, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-1 Exemp, Nagpur

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

ITA 299/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotia, Ld.CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad, Near Holy Cross English School vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib, Abchalnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 809/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad, Near Holy Cross English School vs. The Nanded Sikhgurudwara Sachkhand Hazur Sahib, Apchalnagar

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 10Section 139Section 143(2)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Kashi Math Samsthan Varanasi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1451/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Adhere Foundation, Pune vs. AO, Exemption Ward, Pune

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

ITA 954/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.954/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sushil VarmaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 8

Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee Trust, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Chennai

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

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Gaurishankar Sewa Samiti, Nandura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Nagpur

ITA 73/NAG/2024[2021-20222]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 154

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Samsthan Gokarn Parthagali Jeevotham Math, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 49/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Shree Samsthan Dcit(Exemptions) – 2(1) Gokarn Parthagali Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Jeevotham Math Mtnl, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400031. Cumbala Hill, Mumbai – 400026. Pan/Gir No. Aaaas6210M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G(5)