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

Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen Corporation Ltd., Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 129/PUN/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Pun/2021 Maharashtra Ex-Servicemen Corporation Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Raigad Building, Ghorpadi, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aadcm4072C बनाम / V/S. Cit (Exemption), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Denying The Grant Of Registration U/S 12Aa Of The Act. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit-Exemption Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Registration U/S 12Aa Of Ita, 1961 To The Appellant (I.E. Mesco). 2. Appellant Contends That, Appellant Made Detailed Submissions Upon All Issues Raised, Whereas, Learned Cit-Exemptions, Declined Registration U/S 12Aa On Altogether Erroneous & Incorrect Analogies Without Affording Any Further Opportunity To The Appellant, To Make A Say In The Matter & As Such, Vitiated Principle Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 10Section 12A

Pramod Kiran Sevadham Foundation, Ahmednagar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 601/PUN/2020[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2021AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Pramod Kiran Sevadham Foundation, 35, Varad Estate, Near Swami Samarth Mandir, Gaikwad Colony Savedi Road, Ahmednagar-414003. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aactp6537B बनाम / V/S. Cit, Exemption, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune (‘Cit, Exemption’ For Short) Dated 29.09.2020 Denying The Grant Of Registration U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’). 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (Exemption) - Pune Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Granting Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act Without Appreciating The Submission Made By The Assessee Along With The Documentary Proofs Of All The Activities Carried Out By The Trust. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (Exemption) - Pune Erred In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee For Granting Registration Under Section 12Aa Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 12A

Balawant Medical Foundation, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 11/PUN/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Pun/2021 Balwant Medical Foundation, 28B/Gharkul, Ganesh Krupa Society, Paud Road, Pune-411038. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaicb9778R बनाम / V/S. Cit (Exemption), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiue सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2021 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Pune Dated 24.11.2020 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit (Exemption) Erred In Not Granting Registration U/S 12Aa Of The I.T. Act. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Rejecting Registration Application Made U/S 12Aa On The Ground Of Non-Submission Of Certain Details, Which Were Never Called For From The Assessee Before Passing The Order. 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Order (Dated 24Th November, 2020) Before The Date By Which The Assessee Was Required To Submit The Details As Per Notice Dated 26-06-2020 (Which Was To Be Complied With By 30-11-2020). 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Not Considering That Some Of The Details, Which Are The Reason Of Alleged Non-Compliance By The Assessee Were On Record (Along With The Application). 5. Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Not Giving Appropriate Opportunity To The Assessee, Particularly When The Time Was Available To Him Under The Covid Situation & In Terms Of Extension Of Time Provided Under The Law. 6. The Appellant Craves Its Right To Add To Or Alter The Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiue
Section 12A