NABAKRUSHNA CHOUDHURY CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the assessee's grounds of appeal regarding the denial of exemption under Section 11. The core issue revolved around the assessee's eligibility for exemption based on its application of receipts and compliance with other provisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer denied this exemption, and the CIT(A) upheld the denial.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, considering its application of income and compliance with statutory requirements.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU
O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 23.11.2016 for the assessment year 2010-2011 and is against order dated 4.8.2016 of the ld CIT(A)-3, Bhubaneswar for the assessment year 2012-13.
In A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee has raised the following grounds:
“ 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1, Bhubaneswar {"C1T (Appeals) "\ ("CITA") dated 23.11.2016 in dismissing the appeal is against principles of natural justice, contrary to P a g e 1 | 3 & 11 8/C TK /2 017 Assessm ent Y ears : 20 10- 11 & 2 012 -13 facts, arbitrary and erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable.
2. Denial of the claim of exemptions u/s.11 of the l.T.Act a. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer holding that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the l.T.Act and assessing to tax Rs.29,40,517/- and the learned ClT(Appeals) upholding the same is against the principles of natural justice, based on irrelevant considerations and is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. b. That the assessee having applied more than 85% of its receipts towards its objectives during the accounting year 2009-10 (and thereby the surplus for the year 2009-10 being not in excess of 15% of its income, the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s.11 of the l.T.Act, the denial of claim of exemptions u/s.11 of the l.T.Act by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground of non-compliance u/s.11(5) of the l.T.Act and non submission of utilisation certificate for Grants received during the accounting year 2006- 07 etc. and upholding the same by the learned CIT(Appeals) is based on irrelevant considerations and is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous, bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. c. The Audit Report U/S.12A having been furnished to the learned CIT(Appeals). the upholding of the denial of the claim of exemptions u/s.11 to 13 of the Act by him is. contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous, and bad, both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable. d. That the lower authorities have misconstrued/mis-appreciated the facts, and the rejection of claim of exemptions u/s.11 of the l.T.Act and assessing the surplus Rs.29,40,517/- as per its Income and Expenditure Account to tax in the status of AOP u/s. 28 to 44 of the l.T.Act by the learned Assessing Officer and upholding of the same by the learned CIT(Appeals) is based on irrelevant considerations and is contrary to facts, arbitrary, erroneous, bad. both in the eye of law and on facts and legally untenable.”
Order pronounced on /12/2020.
(Laxmi Prasad Sahu) (Chandra Mohan Garg)
P a g e 2 | 3 & 11 8/C TK /2 017 Assessm ent Y ears : 20 10- 11 & 2 012 -13 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated /12/2020 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, Plot No.A, Institutional Area, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar.
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026