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)

M/S Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 861/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.861/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ M/S. Multi Commodity Ito (E)-2(1) 5Th Floor, Piramal Exchange Investor Vs. Protection Fund Chambers Lalbaug Parel, Exchange Square, Cts Mumbai-400012. No.225 Suren Road Chakala Andheri (E), Mukhed-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm1169M (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil R. Padvekar Revenue By: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Ld. Cit(A)") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of Appellant'S Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Vide Letter Dated 09/10/2019 Your Appellant Had Requested The Ld. Cit(A) For A Short Adjournment As The Concerned Authorized Person Was Out Of India. Without Prejudice To The Above:

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave/Tanzil RFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito(E), Vs All India Fine Arts & Crafts Society, Trust Ward-1(1), 1, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabaa3719N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Malik, Advocate & Shri Gulshan Gaba, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 4Th July, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-40 (Exemption), New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012- 13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Not Appreciating The Fact That The Activity Of The Assessee Of Letting Out Gallery Frequently For A Price Does Not Qualify As Being Called In The Nature Of Charity. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Accumulation Of Income U/S 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, Amounting To Rs.1,53,50,000/- Which The Assessee Has Failed To Utilize Within Prescribed Time As Per Law. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, To Alter Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal Raised Above At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 2(15)