Section 12 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 12 is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 2,391 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 12

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

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.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
131 Taxmann 386 · 2003 · High Court
188
citing judgments

The Income Tax Act, 1961, does not permit the carry forward of excess expenditure of a charitable trust to be set off against future surpluses, as such trusts are governed by a self-contained code under Sections 11 to 13, not the head 'Profits and Gains of Business'. However, depreciation on fixed assets is allowable to a charitable institution registered under section 12A.

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.

Asea Brown Boveri Limited v. Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd.
154 Taxmann 512 · 2006 · Supreme Court
157
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 12

Pragati Charitable Trust, Puri vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.525/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Pragati Charitable Trust Vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Plot No-66 Gyana Viahr, Ward, Bhubaneswar Gopinathpur B.O Dhauli Hills Puri, 751002 Pan No. :Aaqpn 2087 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra,Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/ Jcit (A)-5, Chennai, Dated 05/12/2024, In Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1070904602(1) Having Appeal No. Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Chennai/10003/2014-15 For The Assessment Year 2015- 2016. 2. The Assesee Has Challenged The Appellate Order On The Strength Of The Following Grounds Appeal:- 1. For That, When The Learned A.O. Has No Power & Authority To Determine The Income Of The Assessee Trust, Treating The Entire Gross Receipt As Income, While Processing The Return U/S.143(1) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16, The Learned Cit(A) Has Committed Gross Error Of Law In Confirming The Said Order, As Such, Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) As Well As By The Learned A.O., Being Not Sustainable In The Eye Of Law, Needs To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 57