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

Tirupati Meal Producers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 904/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Tirupati Meal Producers (P) Ltd……….................……....………………..……...……………...…Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan: Aaect 0620 N] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Kolkata..………………………………..........….....……......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 31/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 23 (Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

For Appellant: - a) Copy of the Registration Certificate issued u/s 12AA of the Act
Section 12ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

DCIT, Exemptions, Chennai vs. Sri Rengambal Educational Trust, Thiruvannamalai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 394/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 394/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Sri Renugambal Educational Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions-Iii), Chennai Vs. I.C.C. Road, Ettivadi, Polur Taluk, Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Thiruvannamalai 606 907. Building, Iii Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaets9713L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Soundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erroneously Allowed The Exemption Under Section 11 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri A. Soundararajan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2