CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

264 ITR 110High Court2003#181 most cited

What is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection authority for?

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

398

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection · Section 11 · Section 11(1) · depreciation allowance for trusts · application of income · capital expenditure trusts · carry forward of deficit · charitable trust exemption · computing trust income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12Section 13(8)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(1)(a)section 11(1)application of incomecapital expendituresection 12asection 11section 10section 12previous yearsection 13personsection 25

Judgments citing CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…n of law as held in the case of CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation [1987] 164 ITR 439/[1986] 29 Taxman 476 (Raj) and CIT v. Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal [1995] 211 ITR 293 (Guj.). In CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 (Bom.) it was held that in case of charitable trust whose income is exempt under s. 11, excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years and such adjustment would be application of income for subsequent years and that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been ful…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4000/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…nd prayed that such excess amounting to 2,13,06,095/- is allowed to be carried forward to subsequent assessment years, Ld AR has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Section, [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom.), wherein following question was referred to their Lordships for decision: "3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law forward the deficit of earlier year and set it off against the surplus of subsequent years when the same was not allowable in the case of assessee trust in whose case in…

HOLY FAMILY SCHOOL,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 5902/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…for acquiring assets. The latter is depreciation and it is permissible deduction considering the use of the assets. This has been clarified repeatedly by this court. If any reference is required then the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking reported in [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom) is enough. 7. Going by the law laid down by this court, we are of the opinion that even question No. 4 in the paper-book cannot be termed as substantial question of law. The appeal thus has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs." 6. The Ld. AR submitted a written note in relation to her argument. The relevant part of the said wri…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. DR D Y PATIL UNITECH SOCIETY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1391/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit (Exemption) Dr D Y Patil Unitech Society Circle, Pune Flat No.101, Shree Motisagar Vs. Apartment, G G Thakkar Road, S No.173A, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aabtd1482A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2013-14 DCIT (Exemption) Dr D Y Patil Unitech Society Circle, Pune Flat No.101, Shree Motisagar Vs. Apartment, G G Thakkar Road, S No.173A, Pune – 411001 PAN: AABTD1482A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 27-10-2025 Date of pronouncement : 04-11-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 06.03.2025 of the Ld. Addl…

BREACH CANDY MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1395/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Breach Candy Medical Ito(Exemption)-1(1) Research Centre Room No. 508, 5Th 60-A, Bhulabhai Desai Road Vs. Floor, Pirmal Mumbai-400 026. Chamber, Parel Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Aaatb0045Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Paras Savla
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 35(1)(ii)

…d of deficit. The appellant has submitted that it is entitled to claim for carry forward deficit is founded on well settled legal principles enunciated by various judicial pronouncements as set out below :- a) CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110) (Bom HC) b) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (164 ITR 439) (Raj HC) c) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (211 ITR 293) (Guj HC) d) CIT vs. Maitriseava Trust (242 ITR 20)(Mad HC) e) Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT (248 ITR 368)(Mad HC) 7. But, this issue was not emanating from the assessment order. Anyhow, the Ld…

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/s Barrows Blue Bells School v. The Income Tax Officer Civil Line (Exemption) Bahraich Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAATB7151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R. O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders passed by the Learned Commiss…

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/s Barrows Blue Bells School v. The Income Tax Officer Civil Line (Exemption) Bahraich Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAATB7151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R. O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders passed by the Learned Commiss…

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2202/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…t liable to tax but the income remains the same and it does not get reduced, although such income is not taxable because of the operation of s. 11(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Section [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has clearly held that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income u/s.ll in past years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. Framjee Cawasjee Insti…

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…t liable to tax but the income remains the same and it does not get reduced, although such income is not taxable because of the operation of s. 11(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Section [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has clearly held that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income u/s.ll in past years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. Framjee Cawasjee Insti…

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…t liable to tax but the income remains the same and it does not get reduced, although such income is not taxable because of the operation of s. 11(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Section [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has clearly held that depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income u/s.ll in past years. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has followed its earlier decision in the case of DIT (Exemptions) v. Framjee Cawasjee Insti…

VIDYA VIHAR NYAS SAMITI,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 347/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2017-18 Vidya Vihar Nyas Samiti, Vs. Ito, Ward Exemption, F-23, Sector-39, Ghaziabad Noida, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 (Pan: Aaatv5469L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. DeepeshFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2017-18 VIDYA VIHAR NYAS SAMITI, VS. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, F-23, SECTOR-39, GHAZIABAD NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH – 201 301 UTTAR PRADESH – 201 301 (PAN: AAATV5469L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 18.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 20.11.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. Com…

TRUSTEES OF JNANA VISTARAK SANGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- EXEMPTION WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2627/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Bhandari a/wFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule (ADDL.CIT)DR
Section 10(1)Section 10(34)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α No. 2627/Mum/2024 (Assessment year 2013-14) Trustees of Jnana Vistarak VS Sangh, 2, Dr Bhajekar Street, Khetwadi, Mumbai-400 004 PAN :AAATT0086B APPELLANT Income-tax Officer- Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai, 6th Floor, MTNL Tel Ex. Building, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Bhandari a/w Shri Vishal D. Shah Respondent by : Shri P.D. Choughule (ADDL.CIT)DR Date of hearing : 22/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 25/07/202…

SMT.SULOCHANADEVI SINGHANIA SCHOOL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (EXEM)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3713/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Dr Kishore Dhule- CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 28Section 6

…Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation [402 ITR 441(SC)]. 7. In so far as the second issue is concerned, it is submitted that the deficit of such expenditure over income can be allowed as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110). It is submitted that the assessment order is silent on this aspect and the CIT(A) has also not appropriately dealt with the issue. 8. The learned CIT-DR has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that sub section 6 of section 11, as introduced w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16, aims at doing away the claim of double benefit. It is pointed out that th…

SHRI RAM SHARNAM SABHA REGD.,PANIPAT vs. ITO(E), AMBALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7873/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Vs. Ambala, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Bc Haryana - 122001 Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (Pan: Aaats4962K) Haryana – 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…R 439. We may also point out at this state that the aforesaid view of Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Court has been consistently followed by other High Courts in the following judgments: (i) CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom.); (ii) Siddaramanna Charities Trust v, CIT [1974] 96 ITR 275 (Mys.); and iii) CIT v. Matriseva Trust [2000] 242 ITR 20 (Mad.); 8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)'s case (supra ), Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, which is advanced before us by the learned coun…

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 675/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…11 of the Act to the assessee, the claim of the assessee is allowable as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of DIT (E) vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (ITA No.2652 of 2011) and CIT vs. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110)(Bom). Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow set off of deficit brought forward from earlier years. 46. In AY 2013-14, the assessee has sold assets having value of Rs.20.00 lakhs. The AO assessed the sale value of Rs.20.00 lakhs as income of the assessee. The reasoning given by the AO is that the value of assets was treated as application of inc…

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 673/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…of the Act to the\nassessee, the claim of the assessee is allowable as per the decision rendered\nby Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of DIT (E) vs. Maharashtra\nIndustrial Development Corporation (ITA No.2652 of 2011) and CIT vs.\nInstitute of Banking (264 ITR 110)(Bom). Accordingly, we direct the AO to\nallow set off of deficit brought forward from earlier years.\n46.\nIn AY 2013-14, the assessee has sold assets having value of Rs.20.00\nlakhs. The AO assessed the sale value of Rs.20.00 lakhs as income of the\nassessee. The reasoning given by the AO is that the value of assets was\ntreated as application…

PADMASHREE DR. D.Y.PATIL UNIVERSITY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INCOME TAX CC-7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3266/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…11 of the Act to the assessee, the claim of the assessee is allowable as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the cases of DIT (E) vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (ITA No.2652 of 2011) and CIT vs. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110)(Bom). Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow set off of deficit brought forward from earlier years. 46. In AY 2013-14, the assessee has sold assets having value of Rs.20.00 lakhs. The AO assessed the sale value of Rs.20.00 lakhs as income of the assessee. The reasoning given by the AO is that the value of assets was treated as application of inc…

BREACH CANDY HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1719/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbreach Candy Hospital Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, 60A, Bhulabhai Exemption Ward (1)(1) Desai Road, Cumballa Hill 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal S.O, Mumbai – 400026 Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhat Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 21.03.2023 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Via) 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Denying The Claim Of The Appellant For Grant Of Exemption Under Section 10(23Cx(Via) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Bombay High Court To Grant Exemption Under Section 10(23Cxvia) Pursuant To Ad-Interim Relief Granted To The Appellant Vide Order Dated 17 January 2011. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Followed Directions Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court. Provision For Gratuity To Be Treated As ‘Application Of Income’

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

…n Ward (1)(1) excess application of the income over the income earned of the trust from its activities determined on the basis of principal laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the decision of CIT(A) Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS) (264 ITR 110). In view of the above facts and findings we direct the assessing officer to consider the claim of the assessee as per the rectification application already filed at the earliest. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose. Or…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK vs. SHRI VILLE PARLE KELVANI MANDAL, VILLE PARLE (W)

Appeal is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 27/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Pune02 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Akash GogariFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)

…(a) of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the subsequent years which is legally not permissible ? 4. Whether in the facts 85 circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking personnel 264 ITR 110 (BOM) and directing the AO to follow the decision and allowed the assessee to carry forward the deficit and adjust against income of subsequent years, 3 ITA.No.27/PUN./2022 ignoring the facts that there was no express provision in the I. T.Act, 1961 permitting allowance of such claims ? 5. Regarding the AO’s action for the year at Rs. Nil not al…

THE DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

…ritable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking (2003)264 ITR 110 (Bom), wherein a similar view was taken by the Bombay High Court as well. In view of the above rulings, the assessee submitted before CIT that deficit claimed during the year be allowed to be carried forward. The Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee with the following observations: 4.1. I have carefully considered the contention of the appe…

Showing 1–20 of 398 · Page 1 of 20

...
CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110) — Cited in 398 Judgments | BharatTax