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

Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust, Godhra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat at -Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle-1, (Exemptions), Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissioner Of Bangalore Development Authority, Income Tax, Circle-1, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark (Exemptions), Bengaluru Vs. West, Seshadripuram S.O., Bangalore North, Bangalore-560020 Pan – Aaalb0060D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Sri. D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Dated 8.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Statutory Body Under The Government Of Karnataka & They Are Regular In Filing Their Return Of Income. The Assessee Also Got Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act W.E.F. 1.04.2003. During The Assessment Year 2008-09, The Assessee Filed Their Original Return Of Income On 25.09.2008 & Claimed Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Assessee Also Filed The Audit Report Alongwith The Return Of Income. The Return Was Processed & The Ao Accepted The Same. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice Was Issued On Various Dates & The Assessee Also Appeared & Filed Their

For Appellant: Sri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Sri. D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

M/S. Auro Lab Trust, Madurai vs. ITO, Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3075/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3073, 3074, 3075 & 3076/Chny/2019 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Aurolab Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Sivaganagai Main Road, Vs. Ward-Ii(4), Veerapanjan, Madurai. Madurai – 625 020. [Pan: Aaata 1142P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate -.थ+ की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-12 To 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts In All The Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Identical & Common Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, All The Appeals Are Decided By The Common Order. For Brevity , We Shall Take Up The

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 1I