Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 12AA is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278), cited in 390 of the 4,243 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 12AA

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.

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.

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT
372 ITR 699 · 2015 · Supreme Court
152
citing judgments

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

Union of India v. Exide Industries
425 ITR 1 · 2020 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

The provision for leave encashment is allowable as a deduction only on an actual payment basis under Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f).

Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
31 ITR 28 · 1957 · Supreme Court
137
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for commercial expediency, even without a direct or immediate benefit but indirectly facilitating business, is deductible as laid out wholly and exclusively for trade. The scope of reference jurisdiction under Section 66 is limited to questions of law, allowing challenges to Tribunal findings of fact only if they are perverse, unreasonable, or lack evidence.

R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT
82 ITR 570 · 1971 · Supreme Court
131
citing judgments

Tax laws must be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice, even though equitable considerations are generally irrelevant in their interpretation.

Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption)
125 Taxmann.com 75 · 2021 · High Court
129
citing judgments

The filing of Form 10B for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 is directory, not mandatory. A delay in filing Form 10B can be condoned, and exemption cannot be denied solely on this ground if the assessee satisfies other conditions and shows sufficient cause.

ACIT v. Surat City Gymkhana
300 ITR 214 · 2008 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

Once an institution receives registration under Section 12AA, the Assessing Officer must compute its income as per Section 11, focusing only on the application of income and not re-examining the charitable nature of its activities. The Supreme Court also clarified the meaning and scope of 'general public utility' under Section 2(15).

Judgments on Section 12AA

Manav Adhikari Seva Samiti, Sambalpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 249/CTK/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.249/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Manav Adhikari Seva Samiti Vs Cit, (Exemption ), Society Hyderabad Dhanupali, Sambalpur Odisha Pan No. : Aaaam2540E (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R. Mohanty, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K. Gautham, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Hyderabad (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’), Dated 29.05.2019 For The Assessment Year 2018-19.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. For That, The Order Of The Forum Below Is Arbitrary, Illegal, Unjustified & Erroneous & Has Been Passed On Improper Application Of Mind, Being Devoid Of Merit As Such Deserves To Be Quashed In Limine. 2. For That, The Denial Of Grant Of Approval U/S 80G On The Ground That, The Assessee Is Acting As A Contractor For Implementation Of The Work Entrusted By The Granting Agency Deserves To Be Allowed

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Gautham, CIT-
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Prabodh Kumar Daw Memorial Charitable Trust, Berhampur vs. CIT(E), Kolkata

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

ITA 450/KOL/2020[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.450/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Probodh Kumar Daw Memorial Charitable Trust…………………….……Appellant Manindranagar, Cossimbazar Raj, Berhampore-742102. [Pan: Aactp9683L] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata…………..……...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjib K. Das Sarma, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 06, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Shri Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Appellant-Trust Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(Exemption)’] Passed U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Rejecting The Application Of The Appellant For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel Has Invited Our Attention To The Impugned 2. Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption) To Submit That The Same Is An Ex Parte Order. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Appellant-Trust Is Situated In A Small Town & The Trust Is Run By Aged Persons & They Were Not Conversant With The Online System. That As Per The Prevailing Rules, The Application Was Required To Be Filed Through Online System. Though, The Appellant-Trust Had Engaged A Counsel But Did Not Inform Them About The Procedure Of Online Proceedings & Nor Did He Himself Appeared Before Ld. Cit(Exemption) Resulting In Ex Parte Proceedings. The Ld. Counsel Has Submitted That The Appellant-Trust Has A Fair Case On Merits. That They May Be Given An Opportunity To Present Their Case Before The Ld. Cit(Exemption). The Ld. Dr, On The Other Hand, Has Relied On The Finding Of The Ld.

Section 12A