CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust

305 ITR 149High Court2008#2636 most cited

What is CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust authority for?

A loan advanced by a charitable trust to another charitable trust can be treated as an application of income for the purpose of availing exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust · Section 11 · Section 13 · loan to charitable trust · application of income · charitable trust exemption · 305 ITR 149 · Delhi High Court · 12A registration · accumulation of income

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(h)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 12A

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)accumulation of incomesection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)section 13(1)application of incomesection 11(1)section 234section 12asection 12aasection 11section 143(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3318/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are\ndismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234B

…loan advanced to another\ncharitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s.11 of the\nAct. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:\n•\nCIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)\n•\nNational Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune)\n10.\nThe learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon\nthe observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority.\n11.\nWe have considered rival submissions a…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3316/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3313/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are\ndismissed

ITA 3312/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…loan advanced to another\ncharitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s.11 of the\nAct. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:\n• CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)\n• CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)\n• National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune)\n10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon\nthe observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority.\n11. We have considered rival submissions and p…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3161/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3160/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3159/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3158/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3157/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…he loan advanced to another charitable trust has to be treated as application of income for availing benefit u/s. 11 of the Act. In support of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and peru…

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT
Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

…x) CWT vs. H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supp. & Religious Endow. Trust (1973) 89 ITR 80 (AP) xi) DIT (Exemptions) vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust reported in 249 ITR 533 (Bom) v) CBDT Circular No.387, dated 07.06.1984 vi) CIT vs. ST. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Ker) vii) CIT vs. Karimia Trust 302 ITR 56 (Jha) viii) CIT vs. Birla Janahit Trust 208 ITR 372 (Cal) ix) CIT vs. Ganga Charity Trust Fund (1986) 162 ITR 612 (Guj) x) CIT vs. Trustees of the Jadi Trust (1982) 133 ITR 494 (Bom) xi) CIT vs. Hindusthan Charity Trust 139 ITR 913 (Cal) xii) CIT vs. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust 172 ITR 698 xiii) CIT vs. Shr…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, CHENNAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 679/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

…onal Trust, cannot be treated :- 18 -: as violation of Section 13(1)(d) and prayed for upholding the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 18. In support of the same, the Ld.AR relied on the following decisions of the various courts: 1. CIT Vs. Indian National Theatre – 305 ITR 149 (Del) Loan or deposit with another trust / concern – amounts to application of income at para 11, the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “11. As far as the third question is concerned, on examining the orders passed by the authorities, in which the objects of both the assessee Trust as well as the Shriram Centre for Art and Culture have been disc…

GOLDEN INDIA FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD,, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 98/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Golden India Foundation AA-13, Jay Ambey Nagar, Opp. Old Jaipur Hospital, Tonk Road, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ITO Exemption- Ward Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTG 3675 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Da

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

…Devasthanam & Charities [1982] 133 ITR 779 held that if the expenditure is on capital account on objects(s) contained in the object clause, the expenditure will amount to application of income b. The Kerala High Court in CIT v. St. George Forana Church [1988] 170 ITR 62, held that construction of building would amount to application of income under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act. c. Repayment of a debt incurred for charitable purposes by a charitabletrust and loans advanced by educational trusts are application of income: Repayment of loan taken for construction of a building by the assessee for the purpose of…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mark as held by the assessee violated the provisions of section 13 of the Act while incurring the said expenditure. We note that the CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of St. George Forana Church reported in 170 ITR 62 held that where surplus funds were utilized for additions to a building, which was let out and the income thereof applied for charitable or religious purposes, the utilization of such surplus was held to amount to application of income for religious or charitable purposes. Further, we note that the CIT(A) placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble…

THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3020/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…of such activities is not at all relevant to the factual matrix of the Assessees. The Sigapi Achi building which is let out and the income where from was used for the objects was held as application of income by the Trust in CIT Vs. Saint George Forana Church 170 ITR 62. We have applied the rental income of the Sigapi Achi Building and other receipts for Charitable objects for the Financial years 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14 Rs.34,37,500/- , Rs.3,02,01,137/- and Rs. 3,47,64,278/- respectively. b) The Gross receipts for the year under construction is Rs.3,58,21,185/- and we have an expenditure of Rs.70,94,341/- to earn…

THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3019/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…of such activities is not at all relevant to the factual matrix of the Assessees. The Sigapi Achi building which is let out and the income where from was used for the objects was held as application of income by the Trust in CIT Vs. Saint George Forana Church 170 ITR 62. We have applied the rental income of the Sigapi Achi Building and other receipts for Charitable objects for the Financial years 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14 Rs.34,37,500/- , Rs.3,02,01,137/- and Rs. 3,47,64,278/- respectively. b) The Gross receipts for the year under construction is Rs.3,58,21,185/- and we have an expenditure of Rs.70,94,341/- to earn…

THE INDIAN CULTURAL RESEARCH TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3018/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.586/Chny/2015, 2976, 2977 & 2978/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer [Exemptions], Vs. M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Ward-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Building, 3Rd Floor, 121 M.G. Road, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 006. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaatt0483G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3018, 3019 & 3020/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. The Indian Cultural Research Vs. The Income Tax Officer Trust, Rani Seethai Hall, 603, Anna [Exemptions], Ward-1, Salai, Chennai 600 006. Chennai (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Cit & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 : आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: There Are Three Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 12.12.2014 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Orders Dated 05.08.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak, CIT &
Section 11Section 2(15)

…of such activities is not at all relevant to the factual matrix of the Assessees. The Sigapi Achi building which is let out and the income where from was used for the objects was held as application of income by the Trust in CIT Vs. Saint George Forana Church 170 ITR 62. We have applied the rental income of the Sigapi Achi Building and other receipts for Charitable objects for the Financial years 11-12, 12-13 and 13-14 Rs.34,37,500/- , Rs.3,02,01,137/- and Rs. 3,47,64,278/- respectively. b) The Gross receipts for the year under construction is Rs.3,58,21,185/- and we have an expenditure of Rs.70,94,341/- to earn…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3