ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MORSIWALA MANZIL MUSAFIRKHANA, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim to carry forward the deficit, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the jurisdictional High Court's decision is binding.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable trust, declared a deficit of Rs. 120.19 lakhs due to application of funds exceeding income and sought to carry forward this deficit. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim.
What were the issues?
Whether a deficit amount of income for a charitable trust can be carried forward for set off against future income as an application of income under Section 11.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection398 citing264 ITR 110 · 2003 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
The appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 28- 02-2017 passed by Ld CIT(A)-1, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the deficit amount of current year for setting it off against income of subsequent years as application of income u/s 11 of the Act.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However I notice that the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel (264 ITR 110). Hence I proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
I heard Ld D.R and perused the record. The assessee is a public charitable trust registered with DIT(E), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee had applied funds in excess of its income and accordingly declared deficit of Rs.120.19 lakhs and sought to carry forward the same to the 2 Morsiwala Manzil Musafirkhan succeeding year. The AO rejected the same. However, the Ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel (supra). The revenue is aggrieved by the said decision.
The Ld D.R submitted that the revenue has not accepted the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel (supra) and it has filed appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court is binding upon all the authorities below it and hence the same is required to be followed till the time it is reversed by the higher Court. Since the Ld CIT(A) has followed the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with his order.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 14.9.2017.
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 Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026