M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) for rental income differences. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable trust, claimed exemption under Section 11. The Assessing Officer (AO) denied exemption and made additions, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed against these orders for assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19.
What were the issues?
Whether the denial of exemption for rental income and the disallowance of depreciation on capital assets were justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 11,Section 13(1)(c),Section 11(6),Section 13(3),Section 32,Section 164(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(9)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.
- ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority390 citing449 ITR 1 · 2022 · SC
- CIT v. Foramer France253 citing264 ITR 566 · 2003 · SC
- Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona130 citing89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · SC
- Bawa Abhai Singh v. DCIT92 citing87 Taxmann 306 · 2001 · HC
- Foramer France v. CIT77 citing247 ITR 436 · 2001 · HC
- 147. In Rakesh Aggarwal v. Asstt. CIT63 citing225 ITR 496 · 1997 · HC
- CIT v. Halai Nemon Association35 citing243 ITR 439 · 2000 · HC
- Deputy CIT v. ONGC20 citing70 ITD 468 · 1999 · ITAT
- CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha17 citing245 ITR 242 · 2000 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE
PER BENCH:
This bunch of ‘seven’ appeals filed by the assessee are directed
against separate, but identical orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-20, Chennai, all dated 30.10.2023 and pertains to assessment
years 2012-13 to 2018-19. Since, facts are identical and issues are common, for the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together
and are being dispo
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.
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs ITO, Exemption Ward, ChennaiChennai27 Mar 2024Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha and 4 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) regarding rental income. For depreciation, it was allowed for AYs 2012-15 but disallowed for AYs 2015-19 due to amendment in Section 11(6).
- S.P. Singla Construction Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Chandigarh2 Jan 2025Allowed
Also relies on Deputy CIT v. ONGC and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was bad in law and quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on a mere change of o...
- ITO 6(1)(3), Mumbai vs Aristo Realty Developers Ltd, MumbaiMumbai30 Aug 2019Dismissed
Also relies on Deputy CIT v. ONGC and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, quashing the reassessment proceedings. It found that the reassessment was initiated beyond four years without demonstrating any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose trul...
- Pelican Credits & Scurities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 5(2)(1), MumbaiMumbai12 Jul 2019Allowed
Also relies on Deputy CIT v. ONGC and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was beyond four years and the proviso to section 147 squarely applied, as there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Therefore, the rea...
- DCIT- Cir- 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs Imperial Procurement Services Pvt. Ltd…Mumbai20 Jun 2019Dismissed
Also relies on Deputy CIT v. ONGC and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the reopening notice was invalid as it was issued more than four years after the relevant assessment year, and there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. This amou...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
