ROSE TRUST,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

ITA 3036/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 August 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 167B, which prescribes the maximum marginal rate for AOPs with indeterminate shares, is not applicable to a public charitable trust where the shares of beneficiaries are not required to be defined. It followed previous decisions and circulars, allowing the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust (AOP), was assessed for AY 2021-22 under Section 143(1) where the AO levied tax at a flat rate of 30% and surcharge at 37%, instead of slab rates and 10% respectively. The CIT(A) upheld this. The assessee contended that as a charitable trust, normal slab rates should apply and Section 167B was wrongly invoked.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 167B of the Income Tax Act, prescribing the maximum marginal rate, is applicable to a public charitable trust with indeterminate shares of beneficiaries.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 167B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Av. &, Shri Mahender Goel, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Hearing: 05.08.2025Pronounced: 05.08.2025

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22 arises against DIN &

order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1064478744(1), dated 30.04.2024, passed by the learned CIT(A)-4, Kolkata, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,

1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.

2 A.Y. 2021-22 Rose Trust v. DCIT Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

This assessee’s appeal raises the following substantive grounds:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the levy of tax and surcharge at a higher rate while processing the Re

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 167B

All 178 judgments and leading authorities on Section 167B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →