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)

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Youth Centre Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 234/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2012-13 Vs. M/S. Indian National Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(2), New Delhi. Theatre Trust, 4, Safdar Hasmi Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaati 1040E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Shri Anunav Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- 40, Delhi, Vide Order Dated 03.10.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Was Predominantly Engaged In The Activities Of Hiring Out Of Auditorium & Providing Space For Rent In Lieu Of Fee, Which Were Commercial In Nature & Hence, 1St Proviso To Section 2(15) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Applicable In This Case.” 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust Which Was Constituted By The Trust Deed/Memorandum Of Association Dated 15.02.1958 & Is Also Registered Under Section 12Aa(1) On 09.02.1977. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Is To Promote Artistic & Cultural Expression Through Dance & Drama Etc. The Assessee Owns An Auditorium At 4, Safdar Hashmi Marg, New Delhi Which Was Claimed To Have Been Used For Promoting The Objects Of The Trust. For This The Auditorium Is Also Rented Out To The Public. The Assessee Also Supports 2

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)