Dismissing the review petition, that the payment of pension to the retired employees of the Authority, in discharge of the statutory obligation was not a charity or bounty nor was it a conditional payment solely dependent on the will of the Authority. Therefore, the question whether the contribution towards the pension fund was made by the employees or by the employer, i.e., the Greater Cochin Development Authority, had no relevance while considering an application for registration under S. 12AA subject to the conditions in S. 12A, read with S.  2(15). Even if the entire contribution towards the pension fund was paid by the Authority, the object of the assessee to establish a separate fund in order to operate as a recognised pension fund for the benefit of the managerial, supervisory and other staff of the Authority would not fall within the definition of “charitable purpose” as defined in section 2(15). Such object of the assessee could not be said to be an activity of “general public utility” attracting the provisions of S.  2(15). (GCDA Employees Pension Fund Trust v. CIT (2014) 532 (Ker.)(HC) is reaffirmed)