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

Mamata Short Stay Home, Cuttack vs. CIT(Exemption), Telengana

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

ITA 216/CTK/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Oct 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.216/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :Na) Mamata Short Stay Home, Vs Cit(E), Hyderabad, Telengana Deulasahi,Tulasipur, Cuttack Pan No. : Aafam 2019 K (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad, (In Short 'Cit(E)'), Dated 02.09.2020, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 01. For That The Order Of The Forum Below Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Unjust & Lack Of Jurisprudence, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Quashed & The Application For Registration To The Appellant U/S.12-Aa Of The Act Is Ought To Be Allowed In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 02. For That The Appellant Society Has Furnished Copies Of All The Required Document Online Before The Ld. Cit(E) During The Course Of Hearing Of The Application For Grant Of Registration, Which He Failed To Notice, Hence The Order Passed Is Liable To Be Quashed. 03. For That The Forum Below Has Passed The Order Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S.12-Aa Of The Act. Before That He Failed To Issue Show Cause Notice To The Appellant As Per Principle Of Natural Justice. Hence The Order Passed Arbitrarily Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 12Section 12A

Lok Shakti Vikash Kendra, Puri vs. CIT, Exemption, Hyderabad

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

ITA 225/CTK/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Oct 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.225/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :Na) Lok Shakti Vikash Kendra Vs Cit(E), Hyderabad, Telengana Vikash Mandir, Nayahata, Puri-752107 Pan No. : Aaaal 2296 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Natabar Panda, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Above Captioned Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad, (In Short 'Cit(E)'), Dated 25.03.2019. 2. This Appeal Is Barred By Limitation Of 31 Days. Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Delay Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Has No Objection To Condone The Delay. Considering The Submissions Of Assessee As Well As The Reasons Stated In The Application, We Condone The Delay Of 31 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. 3. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Submitted That Though The Assessee Was Having All The Requisite Documents, However, Due To Some Unavoidable Circumstances, Could Not Produce The Documents Required By The Ci

For Appellant: Shri Natabar Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 12A

Kakatiya University, Warangal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1749/HYD/2019[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Oct 2021

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonykakatiya University, Vs. The Commissioner Of Warangal, Income Tax Vidyaranyapuri, (Exemptions), Hanamkonda, Hyderabad. Warangal – 506009. Pan : Aaagk0334C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri E. Phalguna Kumar, Ar Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2021 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit (Exemption), Hyderabad, Denying The Registration To The Assessee U/S 12A Of The Act Vide Order U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.09.2019. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A University Imparting Education Within Its Territorial Jurisdiction & It Is Totally Funded By The Government. It Filed Its Application In Form 10A On 31.03.2019 Seeking Registration U/S 12A Of The Act. The Cit(E) Called For Various Details Observing That The Assessee Has Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Relevant Year 1 & Has Also Got Its Accounts For The F.Y. 2016-17 & 2015-16 Audited Only On 16.09.2019, I.E. Beyond The Statutory Time Limit. He Observed That Assessee Has Deliberately Not Filed Its Return Of Income & Thus Violated The Provisions Of The Act. He Observed That As Per The Amended Act, W.E.F. 01.04.2019, The Compliance Of Law By A Trust Is Mandatory. Therefore He Observed The Assessee Has Violated The Law & Therefore Was Not Eligible For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act. He Accordingly Denied The Registration U/S 12A Of The Act Against Which Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal By Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Sri E. Phalguna Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 2