DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

ITA 3556/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the advance of funds to another public charitable trust with similar objects constitutes a valid application of income for the purposes of Section 11, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the AY 2016-17. The core issue was whether an interest-free loan advanced by the assessee trust to another trust with common trustees constituted a valid application of income for charitable purposes.

What were the issues?

Whether an interest-free loan advanced to another trust with common trustees is a valid application of income under Section 11, and whether it violates provisions related to indirect benefits to specified persons under Section 13.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(2)(h),Section 13(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical Hearing) DCIT, Mumbai Sheila Gopal Foundation Room No. 608, 6th Floor MTNL vs 2nd Floor, Construction House-B, Building, Cumballa Hill, 624, Linking Road, Khar(W), Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400052. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Sanjay B. Sawant, Advocate Revenue by Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, CIT-DR Date of Institution 27.03.2026 Date of hearing 23.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.07.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 21.01.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred by overlooking the findings of the Assessing Officer that the loan was used for a project (Bal 1 Gandharva Rang Mandir) of commercial nature generating revenue, thereby failing to appreciate that such diversion of funds defeats the statutory requirement of application

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 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →