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 372,576 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

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 3135/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…1 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. M/S. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 2508/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…1 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated…

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. India Trade Promotion Org., New Delhi

ITA 1919/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…1 (P&H), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated…

B P Marine Academy, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no 6 is allowed in favour of the Assessee

ITA 174/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…on of the DIT(E) national safety council at page no. 216 to 219 of Paper book). The ld AR also drew our attention to decision in the case of Shree Kamdar Education Trust foiled at page no 220 to 229 of the Paper book, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection [264 ITR 110(Bom)] and Viswesvaraya Technologial University [384 ITR 37 (SC)] in support of this ground. After considering the facts of the case in the light of various decisions , we are of the opinion that the activities of the Assessee are covered by last limb of Section 2(15) and are akin to the activities to Samudra Institute of Maritime Studies Trust [3…

ACIT-(E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Educational and Cultural Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1514/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1514 & 1515 /Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITA No. 137 /Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner of Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Income-tax (Exemption), Jain Educational and Cultural Bangalore. Trust, No.285, II Floor, Eswari Mansion, Avenue Road, Bangalore-560 002. PAN – AABTS 1497 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos. 1730, 1731 & 1732 Assessment years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Vs. The Asst. Commis…

DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Ahmedabad vs. Padma Education & Welfare Society, Gandhidham

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

ITA 665/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.665/Ahd/2018 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 143(3)

…against further income of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Plot Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Guj.) and CIT vs Institute of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS) (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Plot Shwetambar Murtipujak Mandal has held as follows :- “A bare perusal of section 11 of the -Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied to such purpose in India…

The DCIT (Exemption), Cir-1., Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2691/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.2691/Ahd/2017 &"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Shri P.NFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…against further income of the appellant. The appellant has relied upon the order of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Plot Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Guj.) and CIT vs Institute of Banking Personnel Section (IBPS) (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shri Plot Shwetambar Murtipujak Mandal has held as follows :- “A bare perusal of section 11 of the -Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied to such purpose in India…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E) Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1383/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Miss. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 143Section 15Section 70Section 80

…law and the judgment relied upon by it rendered by the cognate Bench. Therefore, the same does not call for interference. A similar view was also taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) 20031 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 wherein the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied, then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by…

DCIT -(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3163/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. S. Padmaja
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

…inst income of the subsequent year. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to justify its claim, the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Institution of Banking Personnel Selection Services, [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom.). The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee. He observed, unlike section 72 of the Act providing for carry forward and set–off of business loss, there is no provision under sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act providing for carry forward and set–off of deficit/excess application of fund of a particu…

DCIT (E) -1 (1), Mumbai vs. Anjuman E Shiate Ali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3100/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Bledcit (Exemption)-1(1) V. M/S Anjuman E Shiate Ali Room No. 506, 5Th Floor 210, Taj Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Dr. D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai - 400 001 Pan: Aaata 5692 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Firoz Andhyarujina Department By : Shri Vivek Anand Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Ojha
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 260

…alia recording as under: “4. At the time of hearing both the parties have agreed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom.).” 4. Mr. Malhotra learned counsel for the Revenue submits that although the issue stands covered by the decision of this court in Institution of Banking Personnel Selection (supra), the fact is that revenue is aggrieved by it, however, Revenue did not challenge it in the higher forum in view of low tax effect. Be that as it may, no fault c…

ITO (Exemption) -1 (3), Mumbai vs. Harvard Business School (India) Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3099/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Year:-2012-13 Ito(Exemption)-1(3), M/S Harvard Business School Room No.511, 5Th Floor, (India) Research Centre, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 5Th Floor, B-Wing, Mahindra Vs. Mumbai-400012 Tower, Dr. G M Bhosle Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400018 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaath5643L

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ctivity, deficit of income shall be allowed to carry forward to subsequent years and to set off against income of the trust. In this regard, it has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Institute of Banking Personnel (264 ITR 110)(Bom.). 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also relied upon by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Institute of Banking Personnel(supra) held that excess application of income for charitable purpose can be carried forward to subsequent year and set off against income derived…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 930/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

ITO (E) - 1(3), Mumbai vs. Fayz E Husayni, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3012/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.Subramanian – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR
Section 11Section 12A

…trust registered u/s 12A reflected deficit of Rs.236.44 Lacs during impugned AY and claimed carry forward of the same to subsequent years, inter-alia, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel [264 ITR 110]. However, the Ld. AO denied the same citing multiple reasons as extracted at para 6.1 of the quantum assessment order. One of the reasons was that the department’s Special Leave Petition against the said judgment was pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Upon further appeal, Ld. first appellate authority allowed assessee’s claim by following…

Jt.CIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Dawat-E- Hadiyah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 2336/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2013-14

Section 1

…at deficit of the current year is required to be carried forward to the subsequent years. On perusal of the facts I find that the case of appellant is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court has observed as under "5. Now coming to question No. 3, the point which arises for consideration is: whether excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against the income of the subsequent year and whether such adjustment should be treated as application of income in subsequent year for c…

M/S Shrimad Rajchandra Gyan Mandir Trust, Hubli vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1), Hubli

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment

ITA 39/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Shrimad Rajchandra Gyan Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Mandir Trust, Income-Tax, Beside Sbi, Zonal Office, Circle-3(1), Kusagal Road, Keswapur, Hubli. Hubballi – 580 023. Pan : Aacts 4573 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sowmya, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Sowmya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234B

…ion of law and judgment relied upon by it rendered by the cognate Bench. Therefore, the same does not call for interference. A similar view was also taken by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income- tax v. Institute of Banking (2003) 264 ITR 110, wherein the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the income derived from the trust property has also got to be computed on commercial principles and if commercial principles are applied, then adjustment of expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier years against the income earned by the trust in…