CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association

261 ITR 190High Court2003#6744 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 11(2)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13(3)Section 11(6)Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)(a)accumulation of incomesection 11(6)section 12a(a)section 11(2)section 11(1)(a)tax benefitsection 11(1)childapplication of incomeregistration under section 12asection 12aa

Judgments citing CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association

DINABANDHU FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 450/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.450/Ctk/2025 रोक आवेदन सं/Sa No.6/Ctk/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.450/Ctk/2025) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Dinabandhu Foundation For Educational Research & Socio Commissioner/Income Tax Economic Development, Officer/Nfac, Delhi A/127, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 Pan No. :Aaatd 7338 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dilip Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & Shri Pradyumna Kumar Sahu, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The Assessee Has Filed Stay Application Along With Appeal In Ita No.450/Ctk/2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 Against The Order Dated 21.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Thereby Disallowing The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee Trust U/S.11(2) Of The Act On The Ground That The Purpose Mentioned In Form No.10 Was Too Vague & Lacked The Required Specificity. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Had During The Impugned Assessment Year Filed Its Form No.10 Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Kumar Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)

…7 SA No.06/CTK/2025 3.60 crore were to be utilized for the current and future project of this said hospitals by way of explanation and in support of its contention Ld. A.R. Also cited a decision in the case of CIT v. Hostel and Restaurant Association (2003) 261 ITR 190 whereas it has been held as under it is true that specification of certain purpose or purpose is needed for accumulation trust's income u/s. 11(2) of the act. At the same time, the purpose or purposes to be specified cannot beyond the objects of the trust. Plurality of the purposes for accumulation is not precluded but it depends on the precise p…

HARMONY FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5725/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.M.K. Mahadevan, Ld. Sr
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80G

…o achieve the objects of the trust, the trust cannot be denied for the benefit of entitlement of Section 11(2) of the Act. In support of our claim, we are relied upon the court decision taken by following cases:- a CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association (2003) 261 ITR 190/132 Тахтап 76. b. DIT v. Mitsui & Co. Environmental Trust (2008) 303 ITR 111/167 Тахтап 43. c. Director of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore v. Envisions VINEETSARAN AND MRS. S. SUJATНА, (2015) 58 taxman.com 184. d. M. P. Gandhi Trust vs Assistant Director of Income Tax, Exemptions, 1(1) (2006) 8 SOT 808(MUM) ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax Exem…

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…Trust(supra) have been followed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.CT MutthaiahChettiar Family Trust 245 ITR 400, some other Hon'ble High Courts like the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel and Restaurants Association 261 ITR 190 have held, while refusing to admit Revenue's appeal, that plurality of purpose of accumulation was not precluded, the purpose or purposes to be specified could not have been beyond the objects of the trust and Revenue had not come to a finding that any of the objects of the assessee-company were not for charitable purposes. The concurrent finding…

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…Trust(supra) have been followed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.CT MutthaiahChettiar Family Trust 245 ITR 400, some other Hon’ble High Courts like the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel and Restaurants Association 261 ITR 190 have held , while refusing to admit Revenue’s appeal, that plurality of purpose of accumulation was not precluded, the purpose or purposes to be specified could not have been beyond the objects of the trust and Revenue had not come to a finding that any of the objects of the assessee-company were not for charitable purposes. The concurrent findin…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 562/COCH/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 143(3)Section 250

…oned or categorised. We find from Form 10 that the assessee had enumerated the reasons for accumulation of income which is well within the objects of the assessee trust. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hotel & Restaurant Association [2003] 261 ITR 190 (Del), while considering identical issue has held as follows: - “7. We do not agree. It is true that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulations of trust's income under section 11(2) of the Act. At the same time the purpose or purposes to be specified cannot be beyond the objects of the trust. Plurality of the purpos…

THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC SABHA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3205/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mandir Vaidya, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A

…Ld. CIT(A) failed to note that even if specific objects are not specified, the accumulation would still be valid since charity cannot go beyond the overall objectives which are charitable in nature, as observed in CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association [2003] 261 ITR 190 (Del). I.T.A. No. 3205/Mum/2024 2 5. It is submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, by the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the assessee's own case for A. Y. 2016-17. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust…

THE BOMBAY CATHOLIC SABHA,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3793/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Bombay Catholic बिधम/ Ito (Exem)-2(4) Sabha Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. St. Michael’S Church Baug, Parel, Mumbai- Compound, Mahhim (W), 400012. Mumbai-400016. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt3348L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(2)

…Ld. CIT(A) failed to not that even if specific objects are not specified, the accumulation would still be valid since charity cannot go beyond the overall objectives which are charitable in nature, as observed in CIT Vs. Hotel & Restaurant Association (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Del).” 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2016 along with the Income & Expenditure Account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in Form No. 10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Later, the case was selected for scrutiny and pursuant to it, the AO issued questionnaire to the assessee. In response to the same, the…

BALJEEVAN TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEM. WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1872/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1872/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bal Jeevan Trust बिधम/ Ito (E), Ward-1(1) A/14, Sterling Apartments, Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. Peddar Road, Mumbai- Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400026. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2973M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Accumulation Of Rs.30 Lakhs As Per Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Read With Rule 17 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A

…Nutrition to Underprivileged children”, the Ld. CIT(A) could not have upheld the action of the AO. To bolster his contention, the Ld. Sr. Counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel and Restaurant Association (261 ITR 190) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in similar case framed the question of law as under: - A. “A. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accumulation of income by the assessed under Section 11(2) of the 5 A.Y. 2016-17 Bal Jeevan Trust Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as '…

PRERNALAYA TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD- EXEMPTION 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1242/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 234B

…ITA no.- 1242/Del/2023 Prernalaya Trust IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 1242/Del/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s Prernalaya Trust, ITO, A-49, Prernalaya, Priyadarshini Vs. Ward-Exemption 2(4), Vihar, Delhi-110092. New Delhi. PAN No: AAATP9314Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM This appeal by the assessee is preferred a…

INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXEM) CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1610/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Insurance Institute Of India Acit (Exem), Circle-1, C-45, Block G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat 11174 R (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Revenue By : 25.11.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) („Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year („A.Y.‟ For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged This Appeal On The Grounds Of Disallowance Of Exemption U/S. 11 R.W.S. 12A Of The Act For The Reason That The Purpose Of Accumulation U/S.11(2) Specified By The Assessee Are Vague & General & The Purposes Stated Are Beyond The Memorandum Of Association (Moa For Short) Of The Assessee. 3. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Institution Registered Under The Societies Registration Act, 1860, Established In The Year 1955And The Assessee Was Formerly

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VajaniFor Respondent: 25.11.2022
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…e for developing insurance education, is part of the objective of the institute without which the primary objective will not be achieved. The ld. AR relied on the following case laws: Sr. Name of the case Citation No. 1 CIT vs. Hotel & Restaurant Association 261 ITR 190 (Del) 2 Bharat Krishak Samaj vs. DDIT 306 ITR 153 (Del) 3 CIT vs. Gokula Education Foundation 394 ITR 236 (Kar) 4 CIT vs. Bochsanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam 409 ITR 591 (Guj) Public Charitable Trust 5 CIT vs. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam 263 taxman 247 (SC) Public Cable Trust 6 M/s. national Stock Exchange Investor Protection ITA No. 2359/…

SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXE)-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

ITA 65/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Hema KatariaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ue considered by the Assessing Officer, namely, that the assessee had not specified in Form 10 the purpose for which the accumulation was sought to be made, our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association 2003 261 ITR 190. In that case, a similar argument was raised by the learned senior standing counsel for the revenue to the effect that the assessee had failed to indicate in the prescribed Form the specific purpose for which the income was sought to be accumulated and, therefore, the statutory requirement had not been strictly complied with, disentitling the ass…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. FASHION DESIGN COUNCIL OF INDIA

ITA/375/2016HC Delhi29 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 11Section 11(2)

…irector of Income Tax v. Mitsui and Co. Environmental Trust (2008) 303ITR 111 (Del) where a similar issue was considered by this Court. A reference was made to the earlier ITA No. 375/2016 Page 2of3 decision in CIT v. Hotel and Restaurant Association (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Del) and it was lield as under: "7. This court rejected the contention and held that the purpose or purposes to be specified cannot be beyond the objects of the trust. Plurality of purposes for accumulation is not precluded. In other words, it need not necessarily be specifically stated for which puipose the accumulation is sought. 8. While we r…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. THE MYSORE EDUCATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1346/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri A R V Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: None
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)

…ter was remanded back to the Tribunal permitting the assessee to adduce fresh evidence. 9. The said judgment of the Calcutta High Court was considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, ( 2003) 261 ITR 190 (Del). The Delhi High Court, while considering the case for grant of benefit u/s 11(2) of the Act, held that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulation of income of the trust, and the same cannot be beyond the objects of the trust. It was further held that plurality of purpose for accumulation was not precluded and as…

MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/141/2013HC Delhi27 Jul 2015
For Appellant: Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate withFor Respondent: Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Junior Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

…f the trust and exempts income of trusts with objects wholly charitable or religious or parts of income which relate to such objects.” 24. Mention may also be made of the decisions rendered by this Court in CIT v. Hotel & Restaurant Association: (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Del.), Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v. Director of Income-Tax (Exemption): (2008) 299 ITR 406, Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) v. Daulat Ram Education Society: (2005) 278 ITR 260 (Del.), Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) v. Mamta Health Institute for Mother and Children: (2007) 293 ITR 380 (Del.) and NBIE Welfare Society (supra). In these…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 71/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…53 (Delhi); Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v DIT (Exemption) [2008] 299 ITR 406 (Delhi); DIT v Mamta Health Institute [2007] 293 ITR 380 (Delhi); DIT (Exemption) v Daulat Ram Education Society [2005] 278 ITR 260 (Delhi) & CIT v Hotel & Restaurant Association [2003] 261 ITR 190 (Delhi) has held that that purpose mentioned in Form 10 for accumulation of income need not be specific and was held that accumulation of income under section 11(2) cannot be denied even if purpose/objects mentioned in Form 10 are general. Though there are divergent views on the subject of various courts on this issue, considering the fact that t…

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

ITTA/67/2004HC Telangana07 Apr 2015

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 260A

…ircle III, Vijayawada. … Respondent !Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Challa Gunaranjan ^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.R.Ashok <Gist : >Head Note : ? Cases referred 1. (1993) 199 ITR 819 (Cal) 2. (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC) 3. (2003) 261 ITR 190 (Delhi) 4. (2008) 303 ITR 111 (Delhi) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO I.T.T.A. No.67 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) This appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), against the order in I.T.A.No.133/V/1997…

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ENVISIONS

ITA/752/2009HC Karnataka13 Mar 2015

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 260

…manded back to the Tribunal permitting the assessee to adduce fresh evidence. 9. The said judgment of the Calcutta High Court was considered by the Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs HOTEL & RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION, ( 2003) 261 ITR 190 (Del). The Delhi High Court, while considering the case for grant of benefit u/s 11(2) of the Act, held that specification of certain purpose or purposes is needed for accumulation of income of the trust, and the same cannot be beyond the objects of the trust. It was further held that plurality of purpose for accumulation was not precluded…