(INDIA) — India’s Income-tax Act, 1961 defines what counts as a “charitable purpose” and sets out a compliance-heavy route for trusts and certain public bodies to claim tax exemptions, as updated through the Finance Act 2025.
Section 2(15) of the law defines charitable purpose to include relief of poor, education, medical relief, yoga, preservation of environment, preservation of monuments, and advancement of any other object of general public utility (GPU).
For GPU trusts that carry on business or commercial activity, the statute caps commercial receipts at 20% of total receipts of the trust, a limit that can decide whether an institution keeps its exemption under Section 11.
An illustration in the framework sets total receipts at ₹5 crore and commercial receipts allowed at ₹1 crore (20%). If commercial receipts rise to ₹1.5 crore, the illustration states that entire exemption u/s 11 is denied.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v DGIT (Exemptions) appears in the case law list for this area, with the framework stating that incidental commercial activity does not destroy charity if dominant purpose remains charitable.
Access to exemptions under Sections 11 & 12 begins with registration. The rules described for Sections 12A & 12AB make registration mandatory for claiming Sections 11 & 12 exemption.
The framework outlines provisional registration for newly formed trusts, with a validity of 3 years. One illustration sets a trust formed on 01-04-2024 with provisional registration valid till 31-03-2027.
Regular registration carries a validity of 5 years, and the application must be made within 6 months of commencement of activities, OR at least 6 months before expiry of provisional registration. Renewal requires applying 6 months before expiry, with an example that lists registration expiring on 31-03-2030 and an application deadline of 30-09-2029.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ananda Social & Educational Trust v CIT (SC, 2020) is cited for the registration stage, with the framework stating that at registration stage, authority must examine objects, not application of income.
Once registered, the treatment of donations becomes central. Section 12, as described in the framework, treats all donations as income unless specifically excluded.
Normal donations are included in income and remain subject to the 85% application rule. Corpus donations, by contrast, require a written direction from donor and separate accounting.
The framework also sets out an amendment position for corpus funds: corpus funds must be invested in Section 11(5) modes. If corpus money is spent, it must be re-invested back into corpus within 5 years, otherwise exemption withdrawn.
CIT v Sthanakvasi Vardhman Vanik Jain Sangh (Guj HC) appears in the case list for corpus, with the framework stating that corpus donation is capital receipt.
Section 11 then governs how a trust computes income and applies it. Under the 85% application rule, a trust must apply 85% of income.
The framework explains that “income” means income before exemption calculation, and it includes donations, rent, interest, and capital gains. One illustration lists total income = ₹1 crore, required application = 85% × 1 crore = ₹85 lakh, and permissible retention = ₹15 lakh.
CIT v Programme for Community Organisation (SC) is cited on computation, with the framework stating that commercial accounting principles apply while computing trust income.
A further layer allows automatic accumulation. The framework says a trust may retain 15% of income without conditions and without Form 10, without investment restriction, and without time limit.
An example restates the ₹1 crore income case, adding that automatic accumulation allowed = ₹15 lakh forever. The rules described treat this 15% as a standing cushion that does not require the procedural steps used for larger accumulations.
Timing and cash flow also feature in the deemed application concept. The explanation to Section 11(1), as described, applies when income is not received during year, such as rent accrued but received next year.
In that situation, the framework says the trust may exercise option before filing return and treat later spending as current application. The description links the option to return filing, placing paperwork deadlines alongside spending decisions.
When a trust cannot spend 85% in the year, Section 11(2) provides a route to accumulate beyond 15% while keeping the income exempt, but the framework sets mandatory conditions.
The first condition is filing Form 10 before due date u/s 139(1), described in the framework as generally 31 October for audited trusts. The second condition requires the trust to specify purpose, and the framework gives examples of acceptable purposes: hospital construction, school expansion, and research centre.
General accumulation is not permitted under this route. The framework positions that as a substantive restriction: the accumulation must be tied to a defined objective rather than kept open-ended.
Investment discipline becomes decisive at this stage. The framework lists allowed investments under Section 11(5) to include scheduled bank deposits, government securities, units of mutual funds, post office savings, and PSU bonds, and it adds that cash holding is a violation.
A time limit also applies. The framework sets the maximum at 5 years, illustrated with unspent income = ₹50 lakh in FY 2024-25 that must be utilised by FY 2029-30.
Nagpur Hotel Owners Association v ITO (SC) appears in the case list for this area, with the framework stating that Form 10 filing is mandatory for accumulation claim.
Capital restructuring is addressed through Section 11(1A). The framework states that capital gains are income of trust and then sets out two routes.
Option 1 applies the normal 85% rule. Option 2 is reinvestment, where if net consideration reinvested, capital gain deemed applied.
The illustration lists sale price = ₹2 crore, expenses = ₹10 lakh, and net consideration = ₹1.90 crore. It adds that reinvest ₹1.90 crore leads to entire capital gain exempt, while reinvest ₹95 lakh leads to partial exemption.
CIT v East India Charitable Trust (Mad HC) is cited, with the framework stating that reinvestment provision is enabling. The way the rules are presented, this section links exemption to the movement of consideration rather than only to annual spending.
The rules also cover business activity within a charitable structure. Sections 11(4)/(4A), as described, allow business income only if it is incidental to objects and separate books are maintained.
An example given is hospital pharmacy allowed, placing the activity within the operational needs of a charitable hospital while still requiring separate books. Thanthi Trust v CIT (SC) appears as supporting case law, with the framework stating that incidental business income eligible for exemption.
Donor anonymity triggers a different outcome. Section 115BBC sets a tax rate = 30% on anonymous donations, applicable mainly to charitable trusts.
The framework carves out wholly religious trusts, stating the provision is not applicable to wholly religious trusts. One illustration lists anonymous donation received = ₹10 lakh and tax payable = ₹3 lakh.
Transfers between charities carry their own restriction. The framework states that when one trust donates to another, only 85% is treated as application, describing it as an anti-layering measure.
Investment violations can also cut into exemptions. Under Section 13(1)(d), the framework states that investment outside Sec 11(5) leads to exemption denied proportionately.
Fr Muller’s Charitable Institutions v CIT (SC) appears in the case list here, with the framework stating that minor violations should be examined proportionately. The approach described ties the denial to the extent of the breach rather than automatically wiping out the entire benefit in every case.
A separate “exit tax” regime applies when a registered entity changes form or loses status. Section 115TD triggers tax when registration cancelled, conversion into non-charitable entity, improper merger, or dissolution.
The framework states that tax is levied on accreted income at Maximum Marginal Rate (~30%+). The emphasis in the text is on preventing conversion abuse, using taxation at the point of exit as a backstop.
Audits and returns add more compliance layers. Section 12A(1)(b), as described, makes audit compulsory when total income before exemption exceeds ₹2,50,000, described as the current basic exemption limit for non-individual entities.
The audit forms listed are Form 10B and Form 10BB. DIT(E) v Agrim Charan Foundation (Delhi HC) is cited, with the framework stating that procedural lapses may be condoned if substantive conditions met.
Return filing runs in parallel. Under Section 139(4A), the framework states a trust must file return if income before exemption exceeds ₹2.5 lakh, using Form: ITR-7.
Late filing consequences listed in the framework include that accumulation benefit may be lost and penalty exposure. The description ties timing to tax outcome, particularly for trusts relying on accumulation beyond 15%.
The framework also addresses public bodies outside standard charitable trusts. Section 10(23BBA) provides automatic exemption for statutory authorities, with an example of Khadi & Village Industries Boards, while stating that ROI still required if income exceeds ₹2.5 lakh.
Section 10(46) covers government notified bodies and requires CBDT notification, with the framework stating that exemption is limited to specified income only. It adds that return filing is compulsory to demonstrate compliance.
Donor-facing incentives appear through Section 80G approval, which the framework says allows donors deduction. The validity is 5 years, and renewal required before expiry.
Registration itself can be cancelled. The framework states cancellation is possible when activities not genuine, objects violated, or commercialisation dominant.
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v ACIT (SC, 2022) appears in the case list connected to this area, described as setting detailed principles governing charitable status of public authorities.
Across the provisions, the framework describes an integrated compliance model in which exemption depends on valid registration, proper utilisation of income, investment discipline, and procedural compliance. In the formulation used, charity alone is insufficient without statutory adherence.
Finance Act 2025 Tightens Income-Tax Act 1961 Section 2(15) on Charities
India’s updated tax framework for charitable entities emphasizes a shift toward rigorous compliance. Trusts must manage income application, investment discipline, and timely registration renewals to maintain exemptions. Key provisions include the 85% spending rule, caps on commercial activity, and high tax rates on anonymous donations. The legal structure ensures that tax benefits are strictly tied to genuine charitable activities and transparent financial reporting.
