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)

Ace Derivatives & Commodity Exchange Investor (Client) Prtaection Fund Trust, Mumbai vs. DIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6580/MUM/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6580/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 20014-15) Ace Derivatives & बिधम/ Director Of Income Tax Commodity Exchange (Exemption), Vs. 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers Investor (Client) Protection Fund Trust Parel Mumbai. 400012 401B, Infinity It Park, Gen. Ak Vaidya Marg, Dindoshi Malad (E), Mumbai 400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadta9506A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. P. Meena (Cit Dr) Assessee By: Shri Chetan Kakka (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28.03.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2014, Passed By The Director Of Income- Tax (Exemption), 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 In Which The Application Moved By The Appellant U/S 12A Of The Act Has Been Ordered To Be Rejected. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. Director Of Income Tax(Exemption) Hereinafter Referred As ‘Dit(E)’ Erred In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Ignoring All Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Kakka (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena (CIT DR)
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 2(15)

Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Sangeetha Sabha, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(2)

ITA 1975/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1975/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6858/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Sri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Ddit (Exemption)-I-(2) Sangeetha Sabha Piramal Chambers, 5Th Floor 292,Comrade Harbanslal Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 012. Sion (East)Mumbai-400 022. Pan:Aaats 2694 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri V. Rajguru-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind Javeri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2018 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 20/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)-1, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals For The Same A.Y.The First Appeal Is Against The Regular Appellate Order,Whereas The Second Appeal Is About The Rectification Application Filed Under Section 154 Of The Act. We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together. Assessee-A Registered Trust,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2011,Along With The Income & Expenditure Account & Other Financial Statements Declaring Deficit Of Rs. 27.17 Crores. The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment On,10/03/2014,U/S. 143(3)Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.4.51 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Rajguru-CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)