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)

Chartered Accountant Association, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Jalandhar

ITA 503/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 503/Asr/2024 Chartered Accountants Association Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Model Town Road, Near Skylark Hotel Ward No.4(2), Vs. Jalandhar-144001. Jalandhar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadac-9242-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06 -06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of An Application Seeking Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Vide Impugned Order Dated 14-08-2024 As Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Ld. Ar, Shri Parkshit Aggarwal, Advanced Arguments & Drew Attention To The Articles Of Association To Contradict The Observation Of Ld. Cit(E) In The Impugned Order. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments Supporting Rejection Of Application. Having Heard

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

Gst and Taxation Bar, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jalandhar

ITA 502/ASR/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 502/Asr/2024 Gst & Taxation Bar Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Vs. 498-La, Model Town Ward No.1(1), Gita Mandir, Jalandhar.144001 Jalandhar "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadag-0859-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of An Application Seeking Registration U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Vide Impugned Order Dated 14-08-2024 As Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Ld. Ar, Shri Parkshit Aggarwal, Advanced Arguments & Drew Attention To The Articles Of Association To Contradict The Observation Of Ld. Cit(E) In The Impugned Order. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments Supporting Rejection Of Application. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

Punjab Pharmacy Council, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 543/CHANDI/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 543/Chandi/2024 Punjab Pharmacy Council Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Medical Education Bhawan Central Revenue Building, Vs. Sector 69, Chandigarh. 160062. Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaalp-1134-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of An Application Seeking Registration U/S 12Ab Vide Impugned Order Dated 24-04-2024 As Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Relied On Various Documents As Placed On Record To Assail Denial Of Registration To The Assessee. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments Supporting Rejection Of Application. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

Jjspl Welfare Foundation, Solan vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1096/CHANDI/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1095/Chandi/2024 & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1096/Chandi/2024 M/S Jjspl Welfare Foundation Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Room No.1, 5Th Floor, Cb Building, Plot No. 100, Hpsidc, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173205. Himalaya Marg, Sector 17 E, Vs. Chandigarh.160017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcj-1436-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pulkit Saini (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of Registration Applications As Filed By The Assessee For Registration U/S 12Ab As Well As U/S 80G Vide Impugned Orders Dated 19-09-2024 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1095/Chandi/24 Wherein The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

Jjspl Welfare Foundation, Solan vs. CIT Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1095/CHANDI/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Raj Pal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1095/Chandi/2024 & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1096/Chandi/2024 M/S Jjspl Welfare Foundation Cit (Exemptions) बनाम/ Room No.1, 5Th Floor, Cb Building, Plot No. 100, Hpsidc, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh-173205. Himalaya Marg, Sector 17 E, Vs. Chandigarh.160017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcj-1436-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Pulkit Saini (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Rejection Of Registration Applications As Filed By The Assessee For Registration U/S 12Ab As Well As U/S 80G Vide Impugned Orders Dated 19-09-2024 Of Ld. Cit(Exemptions), Chandigarh [Cit(E)], The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. First, We Take Up Ita No.1095/Chandi/24 Wherein The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Pulkit Saini (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G