CIT v. Matriseva Trust

242 ITR 20High Court2000#1255 most cited

What is CIT v. Matriseva Trust authority for?

An excess of expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in previous years can be adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, and this adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

91

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

Also referred to as

CIT v. Matriseva Trust · Matriseva Trust · Section 11 · Section 11(1) · carry forward of losses · excess expenditure · previous year deficit · application of income · charitable trust exemption · set-off of deficit.

Also reported as

128 Taxmann 261

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(c)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 11(1)Section 11(3)Section 11(6)

Issues it is cited on

carry forward of lossessection 11(1)(a)section 11(1)application of incomeput to usesection 28section 12asection 12section 11previous yearsection 80section 13

Judgments citing CIT v. Matriseva Trust

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

…tently followed by other High Courts in the following judgments : (i) CIT v. Institute of BankingPersonnel 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 counsel for the revenue to repel the same in the following words : "Now coming to question No. 3, the point which arises for consi…

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)

…:- 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. AO is directed to take the submissions and cases-law cited above and if the institution is entitled for carry forward deficit of Rs. 8,71,246/-, the benefit should be allowed. 8. The appeal of appellan…

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…

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. GANGOTRI HUMAN RESOURCES & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, ALLAHABAD

ITA 221/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.221/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption, Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Pandey [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(2)

…n catena of judicial precedents including ‘CIT Vs Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation’ [1987, 164 ITR 439 (Raj)] which subsequently followed in ‘CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal’ [1995] 211 ITR 293 (Guj), ‘CIT v. Matri Seva Trust’ [2000, 242 ITR 20 (Mad)], ‘CIT Vs Institute of Banking Personnel Selection’ [2003, 131 Taxman 386 (Bom)], ‘DIT v. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust’ [2011, 197 Taxman 170 (Del)], ‘CIT Vs Gujrati Samaj’ [2012, 349 ITR 559 (MP)], ‘CIT Vs Punjab Mandi Board’ [2014, ITAT-Lucknow Page 4 of 7 ACIT(E) Vs Gangotri Humban Resources & Development Society ITA No.221/LKW/2020 AY…

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)

…sistently 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 counsel for the revenue to repel the same in the following words: "Now coming to question No, 3, the point which arises for consid…

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…uling of jurisdictional High Court is valid and binding. The other citation on above issue also favour assessee namely CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 271 ITR 293 (Guj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Mad) Govindu Naidker Estate Vs. ADI 248 1TR 368 (Mad) This carry forward of deficit is statutory requirement and cannot be denied. It is humbly prayed that the deficit claimed to be carried forward for set off in the next years may be allowed as claimed." 9. However, as discussed above, the assessee is not being allowed to take exemption u/s…

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…uling of jurisdictional High Court is valid and binding. The other citation on above issue also favour assessee namely CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 271 ITR 293 (Guj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Mad) Govindu Naidker Estate Vs. ADI 248 1TR 368 (Mad) This carry forward of deficit is statutory requirement and cannot be denied. It is humbly prayed that the deficit claimed to be carried forward for set off in the next years may be allowed as claimed." 9. However, as discussed above, the assessee is not being allowed to take exemption u/s…

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…uling of jurisdictional High Court is valid and binding. The other citation on above issue also favour assessee namely CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 271 ITR 293 (Guj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Mad) Govindu Naidker Estate Vs. ADI 248 1TR 368 (Mad) This carry forward of deficit is statutory requirement and cannot be denied. It is humbly prayed that the deficit claimed to be carried forward for set off in the next years may be allowed as claimed." 9. However, as discussed above, the assessee is not being allowed to take exemption u/s…

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…uling of jurisdictional High Court is valid and binding. The other citation on above issue also favour assessee namely CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 271 ITR 293 (Guj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Mad) Govindu Naidker Estate Vs. ADI 248 1TR 368 (Mad) This carry forward of deficit is statutory requirement and cannot be denied. It is humbly prayed that the deficit claimed to be carried forward for set off in the next years may be allowed as claimed." 9. However, as discussed above, the assessee is not being allowed to take exemption u/s…

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…uling of jurisdictional High Court is valid and binding. The other citation on above issue also favour assessee namely CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 271 ITR 293 (Guj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Mad) Govindu Naidker Estate Vs. ADI 248 1TR 368 (Mad) This carry forward of deficit is statutory requirement and cannot be denied. It is humbly prayed that the deficit claimed to be carried forward for set off in the next years may be allowed as claimed." 9. However, as discussed above, the assessee is not being allowed to take exemption u/s…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR D.Y. PATIL ADUCATION ACADEMY , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1350/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: This Tribunal Falls Within The Said Pandemic Period. Accordingly, After Considering The Relaxation Of Period Provided By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Find That There Is No Delay In Filing Of Appeal Before Us. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted & Taken Up For Adjudication.

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80G

…ses had been adjusted. There are no words of limitation in s.11(1)(a) explaining that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purposes only in the year in which the income had arisen." In the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust reported in 242 ITR 20, Hon'ble High Court of Madras had decided that :- "4. With regard to the second question, the Tribunal has held that the trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of Rs.82,516 of the present assessment year. 5. When similar questions came up before Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High Co…

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

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

ITA 8899/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Vs Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Ambala, Haryana-122001. Haryana. Pan-Aaats4962K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shailendra Bajaj, Ca & Shri R.R.Maurya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal Dated 24.09.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…sistently 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 counsel for the revenue to repel the same in the following words: "Now coming to question No, 3, the point which arises for consid…

DY CIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

ITA 1035/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

…es had been adjusted. There are no words of limitation in s.11(1)(a) explaining that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purposes only in the year in which the income had arisen." In the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust reported in 242 ITR 20, Hon’ble High Court of Madras had decided that :- “4. With regard to the second question, the Tribunal has held that the trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of Rs.82,516 of the present assessment year. 5. When similar questions came up before Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High…

DY CIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

ITA 1034/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

…es had been adjusted. There are no words of limitation in s.11(1)(a) explaining that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purposes only in the year in which the income had arisen." In the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust reported in 242 ITR 20, Hon’ble High Court of Madras had decided that :- “4. With regard to the second question, the Tribunal has held that the trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of Rs.82,516 of the present assessment year. 5. When similar questions came up before Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High…

DY CIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY , MUMBAI

ITA 1033/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

…es had been adjusted. There are no words of limitation in s.11(1)(a) explaining that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purposes only in the year in which the income had arisen." In the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust reported in 242 ITR 20, Hon’ble High Court of Madras had decided that :- “4. With regard to the second question, the Tribunal has held that the trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of Rs.82,516 of the present assessment year. 5. When similar questions came up before Rajasthan High Court and Gujarat High…

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. G.T.B CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6398/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri P.K.Kedia[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit, Vs G.T.B. Charitable Trust, Exemption Circle, 227, West End Road, Meerut. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaatg1992R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ramit Kakkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…the question is answered in the affirmative i.e in favour of the assessee and against the department. I have further noticed that set off of future income against application of past years surplus expenditure has been held possible in CIT V s Matri Sewa Trust 242 ITR 20 (Madras) and CIT Vs Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Poojak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Gujarat). I have not been able to lay hands on any judgment of the jurisdictional High Court either way. I feel that the judicial opinion is that income of a trust must be computed commercially and if while doing so, a [Assessment Year : 2015-16] loss due to surplus exp…

ITO (E), WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SWAMI SATYANAND DHARMARTH TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 70

…rward loss/ deficit is to be allowed. A few of such decisions are as under: i.CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj)1987. ii.CIT vs. Shri Plot SwetamaberMurtiPujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995. iii.CIT vs. Matrisewa, Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 iv.Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. v. CIT vs. Institute of Banking, 264 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. vi. DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, 197 Taxman 170 (Delhi) 2011 4.2.3 In the case of DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High court have held as under: "8. It would be fruitful to refe…

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y. PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 155/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…s had been adjusted. There are no words of limitation in s. 11(1)(a) explaining that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purposes only in the year in which the income had arisen." In the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust reported in 242 ITR 20, Hon'ble High Court of Madras had decided that :- "4.With regard to the second question, the Tribunal has held that the trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of Rs. 82,516 of the present assessment year. M/s. Dr. D.Y. Patil Sports Academy 5. When similar questions came up before Raja…

JCIT(OSD), (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI vs. MUTHAYAMMAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

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

ITA 294/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.294/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mrs. R. Anita, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. I. Dinesh, Advocate
Section 11Section 143(3)

…excess application of previous year as against the current year shortfall. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust [2000] 242 ITR 20 (Mad.), directed the A.O to allow set-off of excess application of previous year at Rs. 2,08,18,595/- against the shortfall for the assessment year under consideration. 5. On being aggrieved, the Department carried the matter before the Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the decis…

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2 (1), NEW DELHI vs. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7326/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 15Section 70

…ch income being applied for charitable or religious purpose. Therefore, assessee is entitled for carry forward 6 and set off excess of expenditure incurred during the year over its income. 4.2.6 Some other decisions on the issue are CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 and Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. .2.7 In an appeal filed by the Department in appellant's own case on the issue of carry forward of deficit, the Hon'ble ITAT Bench "G" in ITA No. 1566/Del/2012, vide order dated 10.12.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 held as under: "Ground No. 2: On the issue raised in thi…

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5