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)

Chamber of Industrial and Commercial Undertakings, Ludhiana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

ITA 371/ASR/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 371/Asr/2024 Chamber Of Industrial & Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Commercial Undertakings Chandigarh C/O Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) Vs. # 527, Sector 10-D Chandigarh 160011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatc-3924-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of Registration Application As Filed By The Assessee Seeking Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Vide Impugned Order Dated 05-06-2024 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments On The Strength Of Various Documents As Placed On Record. It Has Been Stated That The Amended Objects Have Not, At All, Been Considered By Ld. Cit(E). The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments In Support Of Rejection Of Impugned Registration. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records Including The Papers As Kept Before Us, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Vijay Mohite (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

North India Society of Metabolism Lipids Diabetes and Hypertension, Chandigarh vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 381/Chandi/2024 North India Society Of Metabolism Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Lipids Diabetes & Hypertension Chandigarh C/O Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) Vs. # 527 Sector 10-D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aactn-5643-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of Registration Application As Filed By The Assessee Seeking Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Vide Impugned Order Dated 20-03-2024 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Stated That The Assessee Has Carried Out Charitable Activities In Medical Field. The Ld. Cit-Dr Relied On The Order Of Ld. Cit(E) To State That No Charitable Activities Are Shown To Have Been Carried Out By The Assessee. Having Heard

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 201