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

Income Tax Officer, Cumballa Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 48

Vision Humanity, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 126/CHANDI/2025[2025-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2025-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.125/Chandi/2025 & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.126/Chandi/2025 M/S Vision Humanity Cit (Exemptions) C/O Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Sector-17 बनाम/ Vs. #527, Sector – 10-D Chandigarh - 160017 Chandigarh – 160009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadtv-3777-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Revocation Of Registration As Granted By Cpc U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(I) & Consequential Rejection Of Application Seeking Registration U/S 80G(5)(Iii) Vide Impugned Orders Dated 25-11-2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. Upon Perusal Of Para 4 Of Order Passed By Ld. Cit(E) Revoking Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(I), It Could Be Seen That The Whole Basis Of Revocation Is The Fact That The 1

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Vision Humanity, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 125/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.125/Chandi/2025 & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.126/Chandi/2025 M/S Vision Humanity Cit (Exemptions) C/O Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Sector-17 बनाम/ Vs. #527, Sector – 10-D Chandigarh - 160017 Chandigarh – 160009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadtv-3777-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Revocation Of Registration As Granted By Cpc U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(I) & Consequential Rejection Of Application Seeking Registration U/S 80G(5)(Iii) Vide Impugned Orders Dated 25-11-2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. Upon Perusal Of Para 4 Of Order Passed By Ld. Cit(E) Revoking Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(I), It Could Be Seen That The Whole Basis Of Revocation Is The Fact That The 1

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Maulana Azad College of Engineering and Technology, Patna vs. ITO Exemption, Ward-1, Patna

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

ITA 474/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Years: 2015-16 Maulana Azad College Of Engineering & Technology..…..……….……Appellant Mariam, Manzil, Anisabad, Patna-800002.. [Pan: Aabtm3371M] Vs. Ito-Exemption, Ward-1, Patna…...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D V Pathy, Sr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 08, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015–16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Educational Institution & Is Engaged In The Activity Of Running In Engineering College & The Assessee-Society Is Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Act. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On The Ground Of Certain Transactions & Cash Deposits Exceeding Two Lakhs Done By The Assessee With State Bank Of India. The Assessing Officer Held That The Deposits Made In The Sbi Was Not Disclosed & The Same Was Held As Unexplained Money & The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs.56,79,506/- U/S 69A Of The Act. Maulana Azad College Of Engineering & Technology 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Appeal Has Been Dismissed By Holding That The Assessee Failed To File Supporting Documents Such As Balance Sheets, Profit & Loss A/C, Bank Statements Etc. To Prove The Genuineness Of The Transaction.

Section 12ASection 148Section 250Section 69A