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

Kalaimagal Educational Society, Cuddalore vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 971/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.971/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Kalaimagal Educational Society Adit बनाम/ 58, Valayalkara Street, Cpc Kattumannarkoil Post, Bengaluru. Vs. Kattumannarkoiltaluk, Cuddalore-608 301. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaatk-7158-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ("#थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld Ar "#थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P.Sajit Kumar (Jcit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Denial Of Deduction U/S 11 / 12 As Applicable To A Charitable Trust, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. From The Record, It Could Be Seen That Cpc Has Denied The Deduction While Processing The Return Of Income U/S 143(1) In View Of The Fact That The Assessee Did Not File Audit Report In Form No.10B Before Due Date Of Return Of Income. During Appellate Proceedings, The Assessee Erroneously Mentioned Sec.80P In The Grounds Of Appeal. The Ld.

For Appellant: Ms. N.V.Lakshmi (Advocate) - Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

Howrah Inprovement Trust, Howrah vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1707/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.1707/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Howrah Improvement Trust........................................................……Appellant 19, G.T. Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aaath7527H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Exemption/Kolkata.......……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anup Sinha, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 15, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 12, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Howrah Improvement Trust, Is The State Level Nodal Agency Of Government Of West Bengal Constituted Under Howrah Improvement Trust Act For Construction Of Roads, Bridges, Sewerage Systems, Buildings, Playgrounds, Auditoriums, Construction Of Buildings For Educational Institutions Etc On Behalf Of Government Of West Bengal Within The District Of Howrah. The Trust Functions Under Urban Development

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Raipur vs. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 142/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vs Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) & Cross Objection Nos.09 To 12/Rpr/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.139 To 142/Rpr/2019) (Assessment Year :2009-2010 To 2012-2013) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vs Acit (Exemption), Raipur Vishwavidyalaya, University Building, Lamti, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur(M.P.) Pan No. :Aaajm 1070 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Arun Grover & Asheesh Ternain, Cas नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/04/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)