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

Kerla Samajam Vasai East, Thane vs. CIT III, Thane

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2756/Mum/2014 (Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961) Kerala Samajam Vasai East Commissioner Of Income Tax – B/5 A/10, Shri Mahalaxmi Chs Circle-3, फनाभ/ Room No.2, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Ltd, Dewan & Sons, Encave, Vasai Roda(E), Thane-401205 16Z, Ashar It Park, Vs. Wagle Estate, Thane(W)-400604 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan : Aabtk5545R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Devendra Jain प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri R P Meena सुनवाई की तायीख /Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of : 30.11.2016 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, J. M: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit-Iii, Thane, Dated 31.3.2013 Passed Under Section 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Rejecting The Registration To The Assessee Trust U/S 12Aa Of The Act. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Challenged The Order Of Commissioner, Thane In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act. The 2

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri R P Meena
Section 12ASection 4

Society for Training and Research on Panchayats and Rural Development, Kalyani, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-41, Nadia

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

ITA 161/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.161/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) Society For Training & Vs. Acit-Circle, Kurchipota Research On Panchayats Lane, Krishna Nagar, Nadia & Rural Development, Kalyani Nadia, West Bengal. Icmard Building, 6Th Floor, Block -14/2, Cit Scheme Viii (M), Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts2844P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anjan Kumar Bandyopadhyay Revenue By : Shri Tanuj Negi , Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 28/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxvi, Kolkata In Appeal No.229/Cit(A)-Xxxvi/Kol/Acit,Cir/Nadia/2013-14 Dated 29.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 22/03/2013. 2. The Brief Facts Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/03/2010 Declaring Total Income Nil. The Assessee`S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Making Addition Of Rs. 38,21,630. During

For Appellant: Shri Anjan Kumar BandyopadhyayFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Negi , JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144