C.I.T., BIKANER vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the remand made by it to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to adjudicate the matter afresh by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was in accordance with law. This was because the assessee had claimed exemption under Section 11(1)(a), but the Commissioner (Appeals) had examined it in light of Section 11(2). Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the decision to set off excess expenditure against income of earlier years was based on a judgment of the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a statutory creation and a charitable institution from inception, and that exemption has been allowed to it subsequent to 2009. Consequently, the Tribunal found no just reason to interfere with the impugned order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner, filed an appeal against the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur Bench. The appeal challenged the ITAT's decision to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for re-examination of the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue also questioned the ITAT's decision to allow the setting off of excess expenditure against income of earlier years. The assessee is Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jetsar, and is stated to be a creation of statute and a charitable institution from inception. The ITAT had previously allowed exemption to the assessee subsequent to the year 2009.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 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, when the Commissioner (Appeals) had examined it under Section 11(2) of the Act. - Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's Contention: The ITAT erred in remanding the matter for examination under Section 11(1)(a) instead of the provision considered by the CIT(A). 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing the setting off of excess expenditure in income of earlier years. - Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. - Revenue's Contention: The ITAT erred in allowing the set-off of excess expenditure against income of earlier years.
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.41/2013 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 New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026