THE GATE OF HOPE CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-2,, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the information relied upon was from a different assessment year and was not independently verified. The reopening was based on borrowed satisfaction and suspicion, not belief.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a registered charitable trust, claimed exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed expenses, alleging they were for religious activities, and reopened the assessment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the AO's action.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was validly initiated based on the information available to the AO. Whether the expenses incurred by the trust were for religious purposes, leading to disallowance of exemption.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)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.
- ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.1,030 citing291 ITR 500 · 2007 · SC · Read judgment
- Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar695 citing268 ITR 332 · 2004 · HC
- CIT v. Orient Craft Ltd.366 citing354 ITR 536 · 2013 · HC
- Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO234 citing130 ITR 1 · 1981 · SC
- CIT v. Atul Jain147 citing299 ITR 383 · 2008 · HC · Read judgment
- ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.116 citing328 ITR 515 · 2010 · SC
- CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd.112 citing357 ITR 330 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
- Tanmac India v. DCIT36 citing78 Taxmann.com 155 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These appealshave been preferred by the assessee Trust against
the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)‘), Delhi, dated 20.03.2024 &
2024 for the Assessment Years(hereinafter referred to as ‘AY‘)2010-11 &2011-12. 2. In both these appeals, the sole issue involved is the denial of exemption claimed by the assessee trust u/s 11 of the Act and taxin
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.
- The Gate of Hope Charitable Trust, Chennai vs ITO(E), Ward-2, ChennaiChennai5 Mar 2025Allowed
Also relies on Tanmac India v. DCIT and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked valid grounds to reopen the assessment as the information relied upon was from a different assessment year and was not independently verified. The reopening was based on borrowed sati...
- DCIT, CC-20, Delhi vs Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., DelhiDelhi23 Dec 2025Dismissed
Also relies on CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. and 3 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances on A&M expenses, finding the reassessment proceedings to be without jurisdiction as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts during the original assessmen...
- M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs ITO, DelhiDelhi16 Dec 2016Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO failed to apply his own mind to the information received and merely acted on the Investigation Wing's report. Consequently, the addition mad...
- Shraddha Jain, Delhi vs ITO, New DelhiDelhi24 Feb 2016Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the AO assumed jurisdiction mechanically without applying his mind or verifying the information received. The evidence provided by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the gift was not prop...
- Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs ACIT, New DelhiDelhi28 Mar 2017Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as it was based on an unsigned and undated document without corroborative evidence of investment. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had not properly examined t...
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
