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)

M/S C.M. Public School, Rajpura vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore,

ITA 1540/CHANDI/2017[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018

Bench: Ms.Diva Singh & Ms.Annapurna Gupta(Under Section 10(23C(Vi) Of The Act) M/S C.M. Public School, Vs. The C.I.T.(Exemptions), Village – Jandoli, Chandigarh. Rajpura, Distt. Patiala. Pan: Aaaac9863C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DR
Section 10

Director of Income Tax (Exempt vs. The Delhi Public School Society

ITA/1086/2005HC Delhi03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 1Section 10Section 260A

The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Jalandhar vs. K.M.V. Collegiate Sr. Sec. School, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department under consideration stands dismissed

ITA 623/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.622 & 623(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A.N. Misra (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Y.K. Sud (Ld. CA)
Section 10Section 147

The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Jalandhar vs. K.M.V. Collegiate Sr. Sec. School, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue Department under consideration stands dismissed

ITA 622/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita Nos.622 & 623(Asr)/2017 Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A.N. Misra (Ld. DR)For Respondent: Sh. Y.K. Sud (Ld. CA)
Section 10Section 147

Birla Education Society, Satna vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Examption), Bhopal

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

ITA 45/JAB/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Mar 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 45/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2016-17   Birla Education Society, Commissioner Of Income-Tax Priyamvada Birla School, Birla Vs (Exemptions), Vikas, Satna (M.P.) Satna (Mp) Pan : Aaaab 3977 G / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Assessee By : Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv. Revenue By : Shri V.B. Sargar, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Kul Bharat:- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Bhopal Dated 14.08.2017 Declining The Approval Sought By The Assessee-Society Under Section 10(23C)(Vi) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) . 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V.B. Sargar, DR
Section 10

ITO, Ward (E), Chandigarh vs. Sant Baba Sunder Singh, Barnala

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajit Saldi
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

Iti Education Committee, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 425/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACIT(DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

M/S Ratlam Maa Sharda Uchch Shiksha Samiti, Ratlam vs. The CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/IND/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2016-17 Ratlam Ahinsa Shiksha Samiti, Cit-(Exemption), 25, Dr Radhakrishan Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Sagod Road, Ratlam 457001, Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aactr3146A Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ratlam Maa Sharda Uchch Cit-(Exemption), Shiksha Samiti,81/34, Ssit, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Rto Officer, Jaora Road, Vs. Ratlam 457001, (M.P.) (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aactr7622K

Section 10

M/S Ratlam Ahinsa Shiksha Samiti, Ratlam vs. The CIT(Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, both appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/IND/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2018AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2016-17 Ratlam Ahinsa Shiksha Samiti, Cit-(Exemption), 25, Dr Radhakrishan Nagar, Bhopal बनाम/ Sagod Road, Ratlam 457001, Vs. (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aactr3146A Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ratlam Maa Sharda Uchch Cit-(Exemption), Shiksha Samiti,81/34, Ssit, Bhopal बनाम/ Near Rto Officer, Jaora Road, Vs. Ratlam 457001, (M.P.) (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aactr7622K

Section 10

Kamala Roy Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. DCIT, Circle - 23, Hooghly

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am ] I.T.A No. 2078/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kamala Roy Hospital Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-23, Hooghly [Pan: Aacck 7985 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit , ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154

Modern School Society, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 1118/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel (Adv.) &
Section 10Section 11(5)

Shree Multan Jain Shwetambar Sabha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/219/2017HC Rajasthan05 Dec 2017
Section 12A

Singhania Foundation Education Trust, Kolkata vs. DDIT (Exemptions)-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1368/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1368/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Singhania Foundation Vs. Ddit(Exempt)-1, Kolkata Education Trust E-12, 1St Floor, 75C, Park Street, 71, 10B, Middleton Row, 5T H Kolkata – 700 016. Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacts 6459 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri K. M. Roy & Anshuman Tiwari, Ar Respondent By :Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–25, Kolkata, In Appeal No.143/2014-15, Dated 15.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3)/11 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 11.01.2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Under: “1.That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Denying Benefit U/S 11 Of It Act By Applying Explanation To Section 11(2) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Sum Of Rs.2283087/- Has Been Applied /Spent For Educational Purposes Out Of Current Year’S Income & There Was No Application For Accumulation. 2.That Ld. Ci(Ta) Could Not Appreciate The Precedents For Earlier Years Under Similar Facts & Circumstances & Has Dealt The Issue Which Was Not The Subject Matter Of Assessment In A Altogether Different Manner. 3.That Appellant Reserves The Right To Raise Additional Grounds At The Time Of Hearing.” 3. The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That Return Of Income For A.Y 2010-11 Was Filed By The Trust On 28.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 20.03.2012. Later

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy & Anshuman Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Manas Sewa Samiti, Aligarh vs. Addl. C.I.T. Range-I, Aligarh

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 361/AGR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 1Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

ACIT(E), Jaipur vs. Scholars Education Trust of India, Jaipur

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

ITA 1087/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varindera Mehta (CIT)
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12A

DDIT (It)-1(1), Mumbai vs. American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute, Mumbai

In the result, so far as the appeals of the assessee are concerned, they are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4932/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10Section 143(3)

American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute, Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, so far as the appeals of the assessee are concerned, they are allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1424/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10Section 143(3)

M/S. Jaycees Public School, New Delhi vs. CIT, Haldwani

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed with about direction

ITA 4554/DEL/2012[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishijaycees Public School, Vs. Ito, C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, Rudrapur D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan:Aaaaj2776K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Taneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

Federation of Indian Pilots, Mumbai vs. Chief CIT 1, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5527/MUM/2015[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12A

Satluj Shiksha Samiti, Haryana vs. ACIT, Haryana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. V.M. Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68