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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.11

Section 10(23C)(vi) 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)(vi) is CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (402 ITR 441), cited in 187 of the 517 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. UOI
327 ITR 73 · 2010 · High Court
56
citing judgments

An educational institution qualifies for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if its predominant object is solely education and not to earn profit. The mere generation of a surplus or profit from imparting education does not, by itself, disentitle it from the exemption, provided the income is applied for its educational objects.

CIT v. Children’s Education Society
358 ITR 373 · 2013 · High Court
42
citing judgments

When an assessee society runs multiple educational institutions, the exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) applies to each institution individually, meaning the specified monetary limit is considered per institution and not for the aggregate annual receipts of the entire society.

Oxford Academy for Career Development v. Chief CIT
315 ITR 382 · 2009 · High Court
37
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.

Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT
254 ITR 733 · 2002 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The burden of proof lies on the Assessing Officer (AO) to establish that a trust or charitable institution is hit by the provisions of Section 13. General allegations or mere transactions with interested persons are insufficient unless concrete benefit is proven.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 344 of 400 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and Ors.
8 SCC 47 · 2015 · Reported
35
citing judgments

Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required for public servants who were or are in service, distinguishing it from Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which does not require sanction for those who have ceased to be public servants.

Tribune Trist v. CIT
390 ITR 547 · 2017 · High Court
33
citing judgments

The proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked against city improvement trusts if their activities are not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, even if they generate surplus or sell developed plots.

Aurora Educational Society v. CCIT
20 Taxmann.com 46 · 2012 · Reported
31
citing judgments

The scope and amplitude of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act and its applicable provisos, rules, and forms are the subject of examination in relation to applications for approval.

CIT v. Indian Jute Mills Association
134 ITR 68 · 1982 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred includes depreciation claims. Necessary provisions required by statute, such as for gratuity and leave encashment, can be considered as applied for the objects of a trust.

New Noble Educational Society v. Chief CIT
334 ITR 303 · 2011 · High Court
22
citing judgments

In Andhra Pradesh, only societies, associations, or trusts can establish educational institutions, as individuals are prohibited from doing so under Section 20A of the AP Education Act.

Judgments on Section 10(23C)(vi)

Tawi Educational Trust, Jammu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Chandigarh

The appeal stand dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 585/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.585/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Tawi Educational Trust, Dcit (Exemptions) 73-Exchange Road Circle-1, Sector 17-E बनाम/ Vs. Kachi Chowni Chandigarh The. & Distt. Jammu -180001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatt-8902-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Withdrawal Application ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam [Cit(E)] Dated 07.03.2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 24.11.2022. 2. The Registry Placed On Record Appeal Withdrawal Request Dated 16.03.2026 From The Assessee Wherein It Has Been Stated That Exemption U/S 10(23C)(Vi) Has Already Been Allowed To The Assessee

For Appellant: Withdrawal ApplicationFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

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