BRIGHT LAND COLLEGE,,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

ITA 227/LKW/2022Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was registered under section 12A and should be assessed under sections 11, 12, and 13. The omission to fill a column in the return does not negate eligibility for exemption if other conditions are met.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bright Land College, filed its income tax return showing income from other sources and claimed application of funds for charitable purposes. Due to an inadvertent mistake by the tax counsel, the amount applied to charitable purposes was shown as Nil. The return was processed, and an addition was made.

What were the issues?

Whether the omission of a detail in the income tax return for charitable application of funds can lead to denial of exemption for a registered trust under section 12A. Whether capital expenditure can be set off against income from other sources.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 11,Section 12,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 12(1)(b),Section 57(iii),Section 12AA,Section 12A,Section 13,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW

Before: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A
Hearing: 02.04.2025Pronounced: 25.04.2025

PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed on 17.10.2022 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee are as under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order, which is unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice.

2.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard.

3.

The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in upholding ad hoc dis

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →