ST. JUDES CHURCH,SHIMMOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, HUBLI, HUBLI

ITA 1830/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 September 2026AY 2024-255 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, declared Nil income after claiming exemptions. The CPC processed the return under section 143(1) and made disallowances under sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3), resulting in a total income of Rs. 15,99,570.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowances made by the CPC were a double disallowance as the assessee had already made these disallowances while computing its application of income. Therefore, the disallowances were deleted.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowances made by the CPC under sections 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) constitute a double disallowance when the assessee had already made them while calculating its application of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 40A(3),Section 11(1),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 28/02/2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra, [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], f

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 40(a)(ia)

All 7,267 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →