MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the donations received by the assessee were taxable under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act as they were not utilized for the intended charitable purpose and were parked in personal accounts. The Tribunal also noted violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a journalist, raised substantial donations through online campaigns for Covid relief. The Assessing Officer (AO) found that a significant portion of these funds were not utilized for the stated purpose, were diverted to personal accounts, and even invested in fixed deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether donations received for charitable purposes, but diverted for personal use and investment, are taxable as income? Whether the assessee violated the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act by receiving foreign donations?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(x),Section 175
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.48 citing116 ITR 60 · 1979 · SC
- CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd.16 citing107 ITR 776 · 1977 · SC · Read judgment
- Six Continent Hotels Inc. v. DCIT6 citing124 ITD 177 · 2009 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: I.T.A. No. 2281 & I.T.A. No. 2282/Mum/2023 & I.T.A. No. 2283/Mum/2023 are three separate appeals by the assessee preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 54, Mumbai dated
I.T.A. No
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Ms Rana Ayyub Shaikh, Navi Mumbai vs DCIT (Central Circle) 6(2), MumbaiMumbai29 Apr 2025Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the donations received by the assessee were taxable under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act as they were not utilized for the intended charitable purpose and were parked in personal accounts. ...
- Sourabh Agrotech Private Limited, Alwar vs DCIT, Central Circle, AlwarJaipur2 Jan 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A cannot be made without any incriminating material found during the search, following the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. Commissioner of Income...
- Ritika Vegetable Oil Private Limited, Jaipur vs ACIT Central Circle, AlwarJaipur17 Oct 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that 'Dharmada' amounts collected by the assessee were not part of sales consideration and were earmarked for charitable purposes. The Tribunal relied on High Court and Supreme Court judgments stating t...
- Income Tax Officer-21(3)(2), Mumbai vs Scheme A1 of Arcil Cps002 XI Trust, MumbaiMumbai10 Sept 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the write-back of an impairment provision is a mere book entry and not taxable income, especially since the original provision was not claimed as a deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of th...
- Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008…Mumbai29 Jan 2020Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Tollygunge Club Ltd.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision for AY 2009-10, holding the assessee to be a valid trust and that the income was not taxable in its hands. The revenue's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
