Section 12A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to sections 332 to 355 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, the provisions on registered non-profit organisations.

Read the 2025 provisions

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 12A is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 of the 6,064 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 12A

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.

Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
292 ITR 470 · 2007 · High Court
320
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that restricting deduction for leave encashment via Section 43B(f) was arbitrary and contrary to Supreme Court decisions. However, this judgment was later stayed by the Supreme Court.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2
2 SCC 453 · 1997 · Reported
222
citing judgments

When an appeal or revision is filed against an order passed by a subordinate forum, and a superior forum modifies, reverses, or affirms that decision, the order of the subordinate forum merges into the superior forum's decision, which then becomes the sole operative and enforceable order.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

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.

CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne
146 ITR 28 · 1984 · High Court
195
citing judgments

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

Judgments on Section 12A

Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in view of above discussions and observations and return is directed to be re-processed as per the above directions

ITA 1521/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1521/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari V. The Assistant Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), No.15/23, Bharathi Park Road, Coimbatore. 8Th Cross Saibaba Mission Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu-641 011. [Pan: Aacts7104B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl. / Jcit (A) (Hereinafter Referred As The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A)’) Kochi Dated 13.01.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal 1. For That The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre Is Contrary To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & At Any Rate Against The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer U/S.154 In Refusing To Rectify The Mistakes Apparent On Record Is Bad In Law. 3. For That The Order Passed U/S. 154 Is A Non-Speaking Order & Hence Bad In Law. Sri Sarvamangala Rajarajeswari Charitable Trust 4. For That The National Faceless Appeal Centre Failed To Consider That The Appellant Has Made Certain Inadvertent Typographical Mistakes While Filing The Return Of Income, Which Is A Mistake Apparent On Record & Ought To Be Rectified.

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 154