ISHWAR EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

ITA 1479/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 September 2024AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 164(2) of the Income-tax Act, read with its proviso, mandates that MMR applies only to the portion of income that has forfeited exemption due to contravention of Section 13(1)(d). Since this was not the case here, the entire income should not be taxed at MMR.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, filed its return of income belatedly. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted the offered income but taxed it at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the AO's action, holding the trust to be an Association of Persons (AOP) taxable at MMR.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire income of the trust is liable to be taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) or only the portion that has forfeited exemption due to contravention of specific provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 164,Section 11,Section 12,Section 13(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Tare
For Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit
Hearing: 19.09.2024Pronounced: 19.09.2024

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.06.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The appellant was duly registered u/s.12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’). The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was filed on 11.12.2017 which was beyond the due date for filing the return of income. Subsequently, notice u/s.148A(b) was issued on 16.03.2022. In response to the same, it is stated that the appellant could not file the return

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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.

More judgments on Section 164

All 181 judgments and leading authorities on Section 164 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →