COMM OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA vs. ST JOHN DIOCESAN GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the ground of low tax effect, as the tax involved was Rs. 37,08,509/-. Consequently, the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were left open.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order granting relief to the assessee under Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed with a delay of 39 days, which was condoned by the High Court.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT erred in granting relief under Section 11(2) for under-application of income and non-compliance with its terms. Whether the ITAT failed to follow Supreme Court decisions regarding the furnishing of Form No. 10 and resolutions prior to assessment completion.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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.
- Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT1,842 citing284 ITR 323 · 2006 · SC
- CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association112 citing247 ITR 201 · 2001 · SC
OD-1 ITAT/408/2017 IA No.GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/3784/2017) IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No.GA/3785/2017) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA -Versus- ST. JHON DIOCESAN GIRLS’ HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 12th April, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. There is a delay of 39 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. We are satisfied with the reasons given therein. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2017 (old No.GA/3784/2017) is allowed.
2 Re: ITAT/408/2017: This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 2nd June, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) ITA No.1079/Kol/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue has raised for the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the said Tribunal erred in granting relief to the assessee u/s II (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a case of “Under application” of income and where the assessee failed to comply with the terms of section 11(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of its revised claim, before completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the said Tribunal erred in not abiding by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association [247 ITR 201] where on similar set of facts it was held by the Apex Court that for availing benefit of Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Form No.10 along with the resolution for set apart must be furnished before the assessing officer, prior to completion of assessment and not after completion of assessment ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the said Tribunal was correct in upholding revised claim of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made before the said Commissioner, over and above exemption allowed during assessment under the said section in accordance with the claim made in the Return by the assessee, disregarding the decision of the Hon’ble
3 Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze India vs. CIT [284 ITR 323] ?” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is Rs.37,08,509/-. If that be so, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal on the ground of low tax effect. Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/408/2017) stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.
Consequently, the substantial questions of law suggested by the revenue are left open. In the result, the connected application for stay IA No.GA/2/2017 (Old No.GA/3785/2017) also stands dismissed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Pal/As.
More judgments on Section 11(2)
- Kammavari Sangham (Regd), Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1181/BANG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi vs Income Tax Exemption, Ward 1(2), New DelhiITA 1516/DEL/2026[2012 - 2013]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Rkkr Foundation, Chandigarh vs DCIT, Exemption Circle 1, ChandigarhITA 477/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Imc Society of Iti Govt Central Crafts… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward…ITA 1850/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026