C.I.T., BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the remand made by the ITAT concerning the examination of exemption under Section 11(1)(a) was in accordance with law. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had examined the exemption claim under Section 11(2) instead of Section 11(1)(a), necessitating a fresh adjudication. Regarding the second issue of setting off excess expenditure, the Tribunal found that the ITAT's finding was based on a judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal also acknowledged that the assessee is a statutory charitable institution and that exemption is available to it post-2009. Consequently, the Tribunal found no just reason to interfere with the ITAT's order.
What were the facts?
This appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner challenges the judgment dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The ITAT had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to re-examine the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Anoopgarh. The appeal also concerns the ITAT's decision regarding setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years. The assessee is stated to be a creation of statute and a charitable institution from inception. The judgment notes that exemption for the assessee is available subsequent to the year 2009.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the ITAT erred in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine the assessee's case in light of the exemption available under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law). The appellant (Revenue) argued that the ITAT erred in this remand. The assessee's contentions are not recorded. 2. Whether the ITAT erred in setting off excess expenditure in the income of earlier years? (Question of mixed law and fact). The appellant (Revenue) argued that the ITAT erred in this regard. The assessee's contentions are not recorded. The Revenue relied on the judgment of the High Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.44/2013 DATE OF ORDER :: 18.2.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. K.K. Bissa, for the appellant ... This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 18.12.2012 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is two-fold :- (1) that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred while remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to examine case of assessee in light of exemption available as per Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and (2) that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred while setting off excess expenditure in income of earlier years. We have examined the judgment impugned. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is relevant to note that the assessee claimed exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the same in light of provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act of 1961. The Tribunal remanded the matter with a 2 direction to adjudicate the entire matter afresh by taking into consideration provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. In our considered opinion the remand made by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. The other issue with regard to setting off of excess expenditure in income of earlier years is concerned, we are of the opinion that the finding arrived is based upon the judgment of this Court. It is not in dispute that the assessee is creation of a statute and from inception that is a charitable institution. It is also pertinent to notice that subsequent to the year 2009 the exemption as allowed by ITAT is available to the assessee. In view of it, we do not find any just reason to interfere in the instant matter being having no subsequent question of law involved. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. [P.K. LOHRA], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J. Sanjay
More judgments on Section 11(1)(a)
- Sri Vidyanikethan Educational Trust… vs DCIT Exemption Cir, VijayawadaITA 412/VIZ/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
- Porwal Charitable Trust, Thane vs The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward…ITA 7604/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- The Somaiya Trust, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 2(4)…ITA 4057/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Jain Citizen Education Society, Surendra… vs ITO, Ward-2, Exmp, AhmedabadITA 737/AHD/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Vanita Samaj, Mumbai vs Jurisdiction Exem Ward 2(4), MumbaiITA 8116/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026