THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal based on a CBDT circular regarding tax effect. The court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the appeal if exceptions under the circular apply, keeping the substantial questions of law open.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that granted exemption under Section 11 to an educational trust. The Revenue contended that the trust had diverted income for non-permissible purposes and engaged in commercial activities, losing its exemption.
What were the issues?
Whether the trust is entitled to exemption under Section 11 despite alleged diversion of income and commercial activities, and whether the assessing authority was correct in treating the assessee as a Company/AOP for tax computation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 11,Section 11(2)(b),Section 11(5),Section 13(1)(c),Section 260-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41872-DB ITA No. 210 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2020 BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX EXEMPTIONS, 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU 560027
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PRESENT ADDRESS, JCIT (OSD) EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, 6TH FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU 560027 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST NO 619/G, 2ND BLOCK, 36TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHESH KUMAR.L.,ADVOCATE)
THIS ITA / INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA NO. 1142/BANG/2018 DATED 04/09/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 ANNEXURE-
Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41872-DB ITA No. 210 of 2020
C AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE -1, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Heard the learned counsel Sri. Sushal Tiwari N., for appellants/Revenue and learned counsel Sri. Mahesh Kumar L., learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
The Revenue is in appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA No.1142/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) had held that assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act even though the Trust
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41872-DB ITA No. 210 of 2020
applied its income for purposes other than those admissible under section 11(2)(b) read with section 11(5) by diverting to its trustees and other specified persons?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal/CIT(A)'s orders can be said as perverse since both the authorities ignored the documentary evidences unearthed in search proceedings conducted in the case of assessee which established the fact that the income generated in the name of collection of capitalization/development fee has not been applied for its object?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) are correct in holding that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act when both the authorities sustained addition of Rs.25 crores for various reasons?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Tribunal and CIT(A) holding that assesse is entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act by ignoring the evidences found in search relating to collection of capitalization/development fees, paid commission @Rs.1,75,000 to an agent for soliciting students which is surely not an object of Trust and by doing so, the assessee trust indulged into a commercial activity losing its exemption under section 11 of the Act? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessing authority is not correct in treating assessee as Company/AOP for purpose of computation of income and as such cannot be taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate when assessing authority has rightly done the same considering the commercial activities of the assessee and also
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41872-DB ITA No. 210 of 2020
for the reason that assessee has contravened provisions of claiming exemption?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) are right in law in holding that assessing authority is not correct in treating assessee as Company/AOP for purpose of computation of income and as such cannot be taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate when assessing authority has rightly done the same considering the commercial activities of the assessee and also for the reason that assessee has contravened provisions of claiming exemption?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) are right in deleting additions of Rs.703.00 lakhs and Rs.554.50 lakhs made by assessing authority due to violation of section 13(1)(c) for A.Y.2012-13 to 2014-15 even when the assessing authority has established the said violation with documentary evidences found in search?
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal and CIT(A) are right in law deleting additions of Rs.93.00 lakhs for A.Y.2012-13, Rs.4333 lakhs for A.Y 2013- 14 and Rs.476. lakhs for A.Y.2014-15 relating to payment made for non-specified purposes in cash to Contractors, other related concerns, promoters etc., even though the same is in violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act?
Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore,
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:41872-DB ITA No. 210 of 2020
the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circular binds the revenue.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submits that he be granted liberty to revive the appeal in case the matter falls within the exceptions under the aforesaid Circular dated 17.09.2024 and Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned counsel for the revenue. However, the questions of law is kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
BS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 0
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026