Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(15) is ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278), cited in 390 of the 2,878 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(15)

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.

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
55 ITR 722 · 1965 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

An organization qualifies as having a charitable purpose if its primary object is the advancement of general public utility, even if its members receive incidental benefits. The existence of incidental non-charitable objects does not negate its charitable status.

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.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)
371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court
128
citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

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).

Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. CIT
426 ITR 340 · 2020 · Supreme Court
116
citing judgments

For registration under Section 12AA, the Commissioner (Exemptions) must examine the objects of the trust and the genuineness of its proposed activities, even if the trust has not yet commenced actual charitable activities or incurred expenditure.

362 ITR 539 (Gujarat) (d) Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DGIT
347 ITR 99 · 2012 · High Court
112
citing judgments

The broad definition of 'business' should not be applied when interpreting the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the object and purpose of the section must be considered.

American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT
301 ITR 86 · 2008 · Supreme Court
111
citing judgments

An educational institution is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi) if it exists solely for educational purposes, even if it generates incidental profits. The mere existence of profit does not disqualify an institution from exemption.

Judgments on Section 2(15)

Chennai Pharma Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Co., Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1103/CHNY/2026[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1102 & 1103/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Chennai Pharma Industrial V. The Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Tax (Exemption), Third Floor, Sidco Garment Complex, Chennai. Block-1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, [Pan: Aaccc4825C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)), Chennai Dated 30.12.2025. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Cit (Exemption) Is Contrary To The Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (E) Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Without Appreciating That The Appellant'S Objects & Activities Are Charitable In Nature Within The Meaning Of Section 2(15) Of The Act. 3. The Learned Cit (E) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Establishment & Operation Of A Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Cetp) For Pollution Control & Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Chennai Pharma Industrial Infrastructure Upgradation Co., Chennai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 1102/CHNY/2026[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2026

Bench: Honourable Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1102 & 1103/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: - Chennai Pharma Industrial V. The Commissioner Of Income Infrastructure Upgradation Company, Tax (Exemption), Third Floor, Sidco Garment Complex, Chennai. Block-1, Sidco Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032, [Pan: Aaccc4825C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. R. Anitha, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E), (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit (E)), Chennai Dated 30.12.2025. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Cit (Exemption) Is Contrary To The Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit (E) Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting Registration Under Section 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Without Appreciating That The Appellant'S Objects & Activities Are Charitable In Nature Within The Meaning Of Section 2(15) Of The Act. 3. The Learned Cit (E) Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Establishment & Operation Of A Common Effluent Treatment Plant (Cetp) For Pollution Control & Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Government Industrial and Agricultural Exhibition Aligarh, G.T.Road, Tehsil

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2758/DEL/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit (Exemption) Government Industrial Circle Ghaziabad. & Agricultural C.G.O.-2, Kamla Nehru Vs. Exhibition, Aligar Nagar, Ghaziabad. Exhibition Ground, G.T. Road, Tehsil, Koil, Thana Banna Devi Aligarh-202001. Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aaatg9972B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Avan Kumar Singh, Ca Ms. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr. Department By Date Of Hearing 07/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(E)] Dated 14.01.2026 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment Order Was Passed On 12.12.2017 Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of Act Wherein Total Income Was Assessed At Rs. 3,78,80,683/- As Against Returned Income Of Nil. The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 11 Of I.T. Act Was Denied By The Ao Which Resulted In The Aforesaid Addition Dcit Vs. Govt. Industrial & Agricultural Exh. Of Rs. 3,78,80,683/-. The Assessing Officer Followed The Order For Assessment Year 2010-11 In Making The Aforesaid Addition & In Denying Exemption Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 11 Of I.T. Act.

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250