SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence that the expenses were directly linked to charitable activities or that the recipient entity was registered under Section 12A. However, it found that funds lying in bank accounts and existing FDRs free from lien could be treated as investments or deposits as per Section 11(5) and Section 11(2)(b) respectively.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable trust, claimed certain donations and expenses as application of income for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) disallowed these claims, citing lack of registration of the recipient trust and insufficient evidence of charitable application.
What were the issues?
Whether expenses claimed as application of income for charitable purposes are substantiated and whether funds in bank accounts and existing FDRs qualify as valid investments/deposits under Section 11.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 11,Section 12A,Section 11(1)(a),Section 11(5),Section 11(2)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)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.
- Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association328 citing121 ITR 1 · 1980 · SC
- Munjal Sales Corporation v. CIT191 citing298 ITR 298 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust87 citing127 ITR 378 · 1981 · HC
- OMEC Engineers v. CIT25 citing294 ITR 599 · 2007 · HC
- ACIT(Exemption) v. Marugappa Chettiar Trust3 citing303 ITR 360 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the CIT(A)-15, BLR both dated 29/03/2024 for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2021-22
ITA No. 1075/Bang/2024, an appeal by the assessee for the AY 2020-21. ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 2. The issue raised by the assessee in ground Nos. 2(i) and (ii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the donation and other expenses of Rs. 36,21,782.00 only.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust, duly recognized and registered under section 12A as well
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.
- Sri Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…Bangalore18 Feb 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on OMEC Engineers v. CIT and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence that the expenses were directly linked to charitable activities or that the recipient entity was registered under Section 12A. However, it found t...
- M/S Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association… vs ITO (Exemptions), ChandigarhChandigarh26 Jul 2018Partly Allowed
Also relies on Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
The Tribunal held that while the dominant object of the assessee is charitable, hosting the Davis Cup Tie involved incidental commercial activity. Income from this commercial activity up to Rs. 25 lakhs (as per the provi...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income… vs Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool Trust…Visakhapatnam8 Jun 2020Partly Allowed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that the refund of excess amount to M/s. SICL was not a diversion of funds violating Section 13. However, certain expenditure allowances by the CIT(A) were set...
- Panchajanya Trust, Kolkata vs ITO, (Exemption), Ward-1(4), Koklata…Kolkata1 Oct 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal regarding administrative and establishment expenses. The assessee's appeal was allowed, implying the disallowance made by the AO was set aside.
- DCIT, Bangalore vs M/S People'S Educatation Society, BangaloreBangalore9 Jun 2017Partly Allowed
Also relies on Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust
The Tribunal held that depreciation on assets acquired from borrowed funds cannot be treated as application of income for exemption under Section 11. However, the claim for depreciation on fixed assets as application of ...
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
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
