DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee, a charitable trust, collected development fees from students. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated these fees as revenue receipts, not corpus donations, and added them to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, holding the fees to be voluntary contributions towards the corpus.
Held
The Tribunal held that the development fees collected by the assessee were voluntary contributions and eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The AO's conclusion that the fees were compulsory and not voluntary was not supported by evidence.
Key Issues
Whether development fees collected by a charitable trust are voluntary contributions eligible for exemption as corpus donations or taxable revenue receipts.
Sections Cited
Section 11(1)(d), Section 12, Section 132, Section 153(c), Section 143(3), Section 12A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 31.01.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2015-16. 2. Since all the issues involved in these two appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No. 2251/Mum/2025, A.Y 2017-18 as lead case and facts narrated therein. ITA No. 2251/Mum/2025, A.Y 2017-18
All the grounds raised by the revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by AO on account of development fee collected from the students.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It had filed the return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 27/11/2015 with returned income of Rs Nil. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on the Padmashree DY Patil University (Navi Mumbai) group of cases along with its trustees and certain employees. The search commenced on 27-07-2016 and concluded on 29- 07-2016. Following the search action, the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 153(c) of the Act. Order u/s 153(c) rws 143(3) was passed on 28/12/2018 with the assessed income of Rs Nil. Additions Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
of Rs 25172,965/- was made to the income of the appellant on account of Development Fee collected from the students.
Aggrieved by the said order assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties deleted the additions and allowed the appeal. Against this order, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us.
After having heard both the parties at length, we found that the assessee being a charitable trust registred under 12A of the Act, the trust incorporated with the main object of promoting education, it is constitutional of D.Y Patil Charitable Trust. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted of its group entities i.e D Y Patil University (Navi Mumbai) along with its trustees and certain employees. Search commenced on 27.07.2016 and concluded on 29.07.2016. In the course of search proceedings the statement u/s 132(4) of the following persons were recorded viz (a) Shri Dhakoji Dattaram Kolte (Accountant), (b) Shri Tukaram Pandurang Patil (Accountant), (c) Shri Umesh Khanvilkar (Professor), (d) Shri Pratap Patil (Asst. Accountant), (e) Shri Sunil Gaikwad and (f) Smt. Shivani Patil (Trustee). The essence of the recorded statements was that based on the materials seized during the course of search, the deponents have Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
stated that corpus donations taken by the Appellant Trust group entities from Donors were in lieu of admissions given to various students in their group entity i.e. Padmashree DY Patil University and that the Appellant Trust group entities was in receipt of capitation fees. These statements were retracted by the deponents under subsequent affidavits sworn on 10-8-2016 & 17-12-2018. However, the AO after evaluating the contents of the statement, treated the development fee collected by the assessee as revenue receipt and not as capital or corpus nature by holding that The said payment is received by the assessee Trust along with the tuition fee, term fee and other charges in a single receipt of fees which the students are making periodical payments. The term voluntary refers to an act of one's own free will and discretion and not a compulsion or an obligatory. In the case of the assessee Trust, the development fee is part of the total fee charged by the assessee from the students and it is apparent that the quantum of amount aid specific purpose on account of which this fee is received from the students is determined and decided by the assesses Trust and not by the students or their parents. Therefore: the development fee is not optional for the students but it is compulsory for the students without any discretion or free will to decide whether to pay or not to pay the development fund fees_ It is a charge by the assessee on the students without having Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
any element of any discretion on the part of the students or parents either to the quantum of fee or the specific purpose as well as the option of making payment or not. Therefore, when this payment is not optional or voluntary on the part of the students but it is compulsory charge in the nature of fee for studying and continuing the study in the institutions of the assessee, then this payment in the name of development fee cannot be regarded as voluntary contribution or donation. The quantum, the time of payments are decided and determined by the assessee and the students are having no say or role in the quantum of fee or any discretion of paying or not paying the same. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case when the development fee/fund received by the assessee is not voluntary but it is a compulsory charge on the students then the same cannot be classified as capital in nature for specific purpose or part of the corpus fund of the assessee Trust.
Whereas on the contrary it was submitted by the assessee that the intention of contribution of development fee is for utilizing it for purpose of construction of college buildings etc. which is for the use and benefit of the present students at large and students joining in future. Such contribution and utilization is in line with the objects of the Trust. n future. Such contribution and utilization is in line with the objects of the trust. Thus, admission to Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
the College after appearing and clearing the entrance exam conducted by the College, is not mandatory but is optional for the students. Where the student opts to admit itself and study further in such college, he also voluntarily opts to pay such development fees. Thus, such fees contributed are voluntary contribution made by the students/parents of students and forms part of the corpus of the Trust and hence not a taxable revenue receipt.
We are of the considered view that while holding the development fee as revenue receipts and not as capital or corpus in nature. The AO was of the view that the students do not have any discretion or free will to pay or not pay the development fee.
In this regard, we also noticed that the provisions of Sec. 11(1)(d) which reads as "income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution" shall not be included in the total income of the Trust. Section 12 reads as "any voluntary contribution received by the Trust... shall for the purposes of section 11 be deemed to be income derived from property held under Trust". Thus, the law uses the expression "voluntary contribution" in both the sections. Every voluntary contribution is revenue in nature, except one with a specific direction that it will form part of the corpus of the trust. Nowhere the Act uses Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
the term contribution or involuntary / non voluntary contribution. Reliance is thus being placed on the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Balaji Educational & Charitable Public Trust [2011] 15 taxmann.com 53 (Madras Tribunal) wherein the following has been explained wrt voluntary and involuntary contribution "The only distinction recognized by law is the voluntary contributions to be treated as income under section 12 and the corpus donations to be treated as capital receipt under section 11(1)(d). The corpus donations are not generally in the nature of income. The voluntary contributions are taxable only if not applied for charitable purposes. [Para 39]...The expression 'voluntary contributions' is used in the Act instead of 'contributions' to highlight the principle of non-compulsion in matters of participating in charitable activities and to underline the gratuitous nature of donations and charitable activities. There is no compulsion in making contributions to charities. If the expression was 'contributions' there could be a nuance of compulsion like contribution to provident fund and the like.
Thus in our view, development fees paid by the students to the Appellant Trust is "voluntary contribution" which is gratuitous in nature and without any compulsion. Further, students already being aware that such fees are for the purpose of the development of the Trust and forming part of the Corpus of the Trust, is to be treated as Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
Corpus Donation u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. There is no question of Development fee collected being non voluntary in nature / compulsory / without any discretion or free. Reliance is being placed In case of DIT(E), Ahmedabad vs N.H Kapadia Education Trust [2012] 20 taxmann.com 702 (Ahd Tribunal), the assessee was engaged in the field of education, it collected from students at time of admission different amounts comprised of different funds in respect of building, education research, education infrastructure, library, sports, staff welfare and students welfare. Parents/students had made contribution with a clear understanding that contributions were towards different corpus funds. Furthermore, trust deed stipulated that voluntary contributions given by parents/students for furtherance of objects of trust were exclusive property of trust which were required to be utilized for objects of trust only. Thus, the Tribunal held that the said contributions were in nature of corpus funds and as such exempt under section 12. Further, in the case of Sadvidya Educational Institution v. Addl. CIT [IT Appeal No. 604 (Bang.) of 2011, dated 28-3-2014], the assessee trust was collecting voluntary contributions/building fund/development funds against admissions given under Management quota in institutions run by the assessee and therefore the Assessing Officer held that assessee was not entitled to claim deduction Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
u/s.11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and held that there was a direct nexus between the admissions granted under the Management quota and voluntary contributions collected by the assessee. Therefore Tribunal held that if educational institution has collected money in form of voluntary contributions from public and may be from parents of the students who are studying in institution and issued receipts acknowledging said amount towards building fund and made requisite entries in the books and deposited same in the bank, then requirement of section 11(1)(d) is fulfilled. Further voluntary contributions received were for the specific purpose of "building" and assessee had applied such contributions towards object of trust. Assessee was entitled to exemption u/s.11 in respect of building fund as well as college development fund.
We also found that the issue of charging development fee by the trust has already been adjudicated by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of sister trust Ramrao Adik Education Society in ITA No. 1509 to 1515/Mum/2025. In case titled ACIT Vs. Ramrao Education Society, (supra) the operative portion of the order is at para 35 to 40 on page 66 to 77, which is reproduced herein below:
The AO noticed that the assessee has treated the development fees collected from students as corpus donations. Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
The AO held that the payment collected from the students are not voluntary payments and therefore cannot be held to be received towards corpus donations. The relevant observations of the AO in this regard are extracted below: “The said payment is received by the assessee Trust along with the tuition fee term fee and other charges in a single receipt of fees which the students are making periodical payments. The term voluntary refers to an act of one's own free will and discretion and not a compulsion or an obligatory. In the case of the assessee Trust, the development fee is part of the total fee charged by the assessee from the students and is apparent that the quantum of amount and specific purpose on account of which this fee is received from the students is determined and decided by the assessee Trust and not by the students or their parents. Therefore, the development fee is not optional for the students but it is compulsory for the students without any discretion or free will to decide whether to pay or not to pay the development fund fees. It is a charge by the assessee on the students without having any element of any discretion on the part of the students or parents either to the quantum of fee or the specific purpose as well as the option of making payment or not. Therefore, when this payment is not optional or voluntary on the part of the students but it is compulsory charge in the nature of lee for studying and continuing the study in the institutions of the assessee, then this payment in the name of development fee cannot be regarded as voluntary contribution or donation. The quantum, the time of payments are decided and determined by the assessee and the students are having no say or role in the quantum of lee or any discretion of paying or not paying the same. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case when the development fee/fund received by the assessee is not voluntary but it is a compulsory charge on the students then the same cannot be classified as capital in nature for specific purpose or part of the corpus fund of the assessee Trust”
Before the CIT(A) the assessee made a detailed submission with regard to the development fees and the CIT(A) deleted the addition by making the following observations: Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
“7.3. 5. I have considered the submission of the appellant. As stated by the appellant, the parents/students were informed at the time of admission that the institute would charge development fee, which would be used for construction of the building. The students/parents have taken informed decisions to proceed with the admission in the institute knowing fully well that the institute would be charging the development fee. They had an option of approaching any other college/institute, but they chose to seek admission in the appellants' institute. There is nothing brought on record to indicate that the parents were kept in the dark about the development fee and that they were making the contribution against their will. The charging of development fee is allowed by the UGC and same has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amount so received has been disclosed by the appellant in its books of account. The development fee is being utilized for the construction of the building of the Trust, which is evident from the fact that the additions of movable and immovable assets are much more than the development charges. There is no record of complaint received by UGC or any other board with respect to non-utilization of development few or diversion of development fee for any other purpose. I have also considered the case laws relied upon by the appellant, where the said issue is decided in its favour, Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is held that the Development Fee collected by the appellant is by the way of voluntary contribution made by the students towards the corpus and cannot be treated as revenue receipt. The addition of Rs 4,25,11,338/- is hereby deleted and is treated as part of corpus.”
The ld. AR argued that the donations are collected through proper banking channel and that the students are informed that the development fees would be charged which would form part of its corpus. The ld. AR further submitted that no complaints are received from the parents or students regarding charging of development fees and collection of management fees for incurring capital expenditure is allowed by UGC notification dated October 1997 as per the prescribed guidelines.
The ld DR argued that for the receipt to be treated as part of donation, the key requirement is that it should be voluntary. Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
The ld DR further argued that Development fees which is pre- determined, non-negotiable part of the admission package, not an optional, conscious donation towards corpus where donations are part of contractual obligation or compulsory payments, such contributions cannot be regarded as voluntary, and hence not eligible for exemption as corpus donations. The ld DR also argued that even if the claim of the assessee that the fee collected is within UGC regulations, that does not change the income nature of the receipts since the corpus character is not automatic under UGC guidelines. The ld DR submitted that no material has been brought on record showing any written or express direction from the students/parents earmarking the fee as corpus. In summary the ld DR submitted that the corpus nature cannot be presumed merely because the Trust decides to apply the fund for capital expenditure and the CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee.
We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The similar issue has been contended by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University (supra) where it has been held that “39. The assessee had received corpus donations in the form of development fees from some of the parents of the students. The assessee claimed the same as exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. The assessee had also received other corpus donations. The AO took the view that the donation given by the parents are not voluntary and it was given only to secure seats for their children. Since the AO had rejected the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act, he also rejected the claim for exemption u/s 11(1)(d) in respect of corpus donations received in the form of Development fees and also in respect of other corpus donations. In the earlier paragraphs, we have held that the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Further, it was only a presumption on the part of AO that the corpus donations given in the form of development fees were not voluntary. We have seen that none of the parents have stated that the assessee trust had put such a condition for giving admission to their wards
With regard to the above said issues, we take support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Kammavar Sangham vs. DDIT (Exemption) reported in (2023)(146 taxmann.com 367)(Kar), wherein identical points were Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
examined. The relevant observations made by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are extracted below:-
“9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under section 12(A) of the Act.
The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under section 11 of the Act.
Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon by Shri. Sanmathi, makes it clear that the voluntary donation made with a specific direction shall form a part of the corpus. The person who makes a contribution can make such contribution either with a specific direction or without any direction. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act refers to only such contribution which are made for a specific purpose. For example, the donor may desire that his donation be used for construction of a building. If no direction is given by the donor, the money received by the assessee shall be taxable subject to such exemption which may be claimed under section 11 of the Act.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the entire amount received as 'contribution' has been shown in the Income and Expenditure account. The denial of benefit under section 11 of the Act is on the premise that the donations received are not voluntary in nature. This precise question was considered by Madras High Court in Balaji Educational & Charitable Public Trust's case (supra) and it is held as follows:
'4.7 The question, as has been posed by the Tribunal, is whether the contributions or donations are voluntary or involuntary and what is the effect of such donation. The Tribunal was of the view that there is no concept of involuntary contributions and went on to hold that voluntary contributions should be treated as income under section 12 of the Act and that corpus donations to be treated as capital receipt under section 11(1)(d) of the Act and corpus donations are not generally in the nature of income. It further held that voluntary contributions are taxable only if not applied for charitable purposes. The emphasis is on, not applying the same for charitable purposes. Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
8 Whether contribution is voluntary or involuntary and its implication in relation to these provisions was considered by the Tribunal in the following manner:
"
To proceed further, we have to examine the (30) scheme of law of charities provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. There is no concept of involuntary contributions in that scheme. The only distinction recognized by law is the voluntary contributions to be treated as income under section 12 and the corpus donations to be treated as capital receipt under section 11(1)(d). The corpus donations are not generally in the nature of income. The voluntary contributions are taxable only if not applied for charitable purposes. In the present case, the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contributions in the nature of income. The assessee claims exemption under section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether the contributions were voluntary or not?
Even if the contributions are treated as not voluntary what could be the legal consequence of that finding? Whether the Revenue will treat such (31) involuntary contributions as capital and give exemption from taxation? No, it will not. The Revenue will still find such involuntary contribution as income liable for taxation. If so, what is the real distinction between voluntary contribution and involuntary contribution as far as the taxation of charities is concerned? In both cases, it will be brought for taxation if the assessee has not utilised the contributions for charitable purposes.
The expression "voluntary contributions" is used in the Act instead of "contributions" to highlight the principle of noncompulsion in matters of participating in charitable activities and to underline the gratuitous nature of donations and charitable activities. There is no compulsion in making contributions to charities. If the expression was "contributions" there could be a naunce of compulsion like contribution to provident fund and the like.
Therefore, we find that whether it is treated as voluntary or involuntary, the only course of action Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
available before law is to see whether such contributions have been treated by the assessee as the income and also applied for charitable (30) purposes."
This reasoning of the Tribunal, we are inclined to accept.
9 The finding of the Tribunal is that the department has not established a case that the assessee had in this case not utilized the donations or income for charitable purpose. The clear finding of the Tribunal is that if the assessee had not utilized the amount for charitable purpose, it would automatically become taxable and the assessee would not be entitled to exemption. But, on the contrary, without there being a finding of violation of section 13 of the Act, an inference is drawn on an alleged receipt of donation and consequently, the allegation is made that there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. A hypothetical finding is given that because capitation fee is charged, it is not an income in terms of section 11 of the Act and, therefore, there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal held that such a reasoning cannot be accepted because if the donations are offered for income and if the department wants to disprove the nature of income on the basis of material, as has been pointed (33) out by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it should be borne out by records based on investigation, which the Assessing Officer failed to do, except falling back on a statement which is not supported by materials'.
We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court.
Sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned advocate is also right in his submission that in each year of assessment, the Assessing Officer will have to examine the case independently. In the case on hand, the Assessing Officer for the A.Y. 2011-2012 has held that he has made enquiry with the parents and collected information that the amount was not made voluntarily.
It was argued by Shri. Chandrashekar that Assessing Officer's view that capitation fee was collected in violation of the Karnataka Educational Institution (Prohibitions of Capitation Fee) Act, 1984, is not sustainable because it is for the appropriate authority, which deals with the said Act to investigate into the matter. In substance, his contention is, the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act cannot deny the exemption under section 11 of the Act on the Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
assumption that there is violation of any other statutory provision. He also adverted to section 12(AA) (4) (b) of the Act and contended that the said provision has been substituted with effect from 1-9-2019, giving power to the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of Income-tax to cancel the registration of a trust or institution. Thus, it is clear that should there be any violation with regard to receipt of capitation fee, the Assessing Officer could not have denied the benefit under section 11 of the Act so long as the certificate is in force. Admittedly, assessee's certificate was in force. Though it was cancelled by the Revenue it has been restored by an order passed by this Court in ITA.No.421/2013. 17. In view of the above, these appeals merit consideration in favour of the assessee.”
Identical view has been expressed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Trust (2023)(152 taxmann.com 664)(Kar) as under:-
“7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused records.
This court in Kammavari Sangham has held that so long as the exemption certificate is in force, the assessee is entitled for its benefit. In New Noble Educational Society's case (supra) relied upon by Shri Sanmathi, it is held that the compliance with registration under the different tax law is also a relevant consideration and it can legitimately weigh with the tax authority while deciding the applications for approval under section 10(23C).
Undisputed facts of this case in hand are, the exemption certificate was in force as on the date of issuance of notice. The AO has denied the benefit of exemption by holding that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 27,23,55,000/- as capitation fee in the guise of voluntary contribution.
Shri Huilgol pointed out from para 18 of the impugned order that the assessee had filed an affidavit before the ITAT stating that no action under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, was initiated against the assessee. The ITAT has recorded that the learned departmental representative had not contradicted the said affidavit either orally or by filing a counter affidavit. Based on this factual aspect, the ITAT has recorded thus in the impugned order; Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
"
In the light of the above, we are of considered opinion that the Appellant is carrying out education which is charitable within the meaning of section 2(15), it has applied and/or accumulated sums as required by section 11(1)(a), the explanation thereto and section 11(2), it is duly registered under section 12A and has not violated section 13. Further there is no private gain and all the funds are ploughed back only into education. Thus accumulations and application are as per the provisions of section 11. Therefore, exemption under section 11 and 12 has to be allowed to the assessee. We hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.11 and 12 of the Act.
In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee appeal are allowed."
The AO had held that there was violation under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, and accordingly, brought the money collected by the assessee to tax. In challenge before the ITAT, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating that no action was initiated against the assessee by the State and that has remained uncontroverted. The resultant position is, the AO, based on assumption and surmise, has held that there was violation under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act by the assessee and that incorrect assumption has been rightly reversed by the ITAT. So far as the authority in New Noble Educational Society's case (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court has held that the registration under different statues is also a relevant consideration while deciding the application for approval under section 10(23C) of the Act. In the case on hand, we are not dealing with a situation where the IT Department was considering any application for granting exemption. On the other hand, the department had issued the exemption certificate and the AO on an incorrect assumption has treated the money collected by the assessee as capitation fee under the KEI (Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act. Therefore, the said authority does not lend any support to the Revenue. This court has already taken a view in Kammavari Sangham's case (supra) and the same is applicable to the facts of this case.
In view of the above, this appeal by the Revenue must fail ..”
Accordingly, we hold that the assessee should be granted exemption u/s 11 of the Act in all the years under consideration. We order accordingly. Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the corpus donations received in the form of development fees and also other corpus donations are eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The details of additions made by the AO are tabulated below:- Asst. Year Development Other corpus Fees donations 2013-14 9,88,60,344 3,37,58,000 2014-15 12,25,31,425 8,09,60,000 2015-16 13,92,85,176 46,80,000 2016-17 12,03,14,344 1,34,15,000 2017-18 10,13,32,005 1,63,16,749 Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in all the years under consideration and direct the AO to grant exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of above items of corpus donations.”
The nature of receipts in assessee's case is identical to the above case and the AO's findings in assessee’s case are also on similar lines. Therefore in our considered view there is no reason for us to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). The ground raised by the revenue in this regard is dismissed.
Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the entire case, we found that as per the facts of the present case since the parents / students informed at the time of admission that the institution would charge development fee, which would be used for construction of the building. The students/parents have taken informed decisions to proceed with the admission in the institute knowing fully well that the institute would be charging the development fee. They had an option of approaching any other college/institute, but they chose to seek admission in the appellants' institute. There is nothing brought on record to indicate that the parents Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
were kept in the dark about the development fee and that they were making the contribution against their will. The charging of development fee is allowed by the UGC and same has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The amount so received has been disclosed by the appellant in its books of account. The development fee is being utilized for the construction of the building of the Trust, which is evident from the fact that the additions of movable and immovable assets are much more than the development charges. There is no record of complaint received by UGC or any other board with respect to non-utilization of development few or diversion of development fee for any other purpose.
No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us during the course of arguments in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld.CIT(A).
Therefore considering the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of sister trust Ramrao Adik Education Society (supra) we have no reasons to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, while dismissing the grounds raised by the revenue, we uphold the decision of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed. Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
ITA No. 2289/Mum/2025, 2015-16
As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to ITA No 2251/Mum/2025 for the A.Y 2017-18 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeal also stands dismissed.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2026 (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 10/02/2026 KRK, PS Dr.D Y Patil Educational Academy., Mumbai.
आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत ////
उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst.
