CIT v. Matriseva Trust

242 ITR 20High Court2000#1239 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 366,339 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

DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai vs. Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai

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

ITA 2879/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2879/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Great Lakes Institute Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai Vs. Management, No. 24, South Mada Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe Street, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Building, Iii Floor, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai 600 015. Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. [Pan:Aaccg2885L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Maruda Pandian, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai Dated 14.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Eligible To Set Off Of Brought Forward Excess Application Of Funds To Subsequent Years.

For Appellant: Shri Maruda Pandian, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ns of the Act allowing set off and carry forward of losses does not permit determination of loss under section 11 of the Act and its carry forward. 3. On appeal, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. By relying on the grounds of appeal, the ld. DR has submitted that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act which allows for determination of loss under section 11 3 I.T.A. No. 2879/Chny/18 of the Act and carry forward of the same…

The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward, Surat vs. Shree Ambika Niketan Trust, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhअपील सं./Ita No.667/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ambika Niketan Trust, [Exemption] Ward, Surat, H.No.13/52, Vs. Surat. C/0 Ambika Niketan Mandir, Khan Saheb Ni Wadi, Athwalines, Surat-395001. Pan Aabts2849C (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Prasanjit Singh, Cit,Dr : Assessee By Kruti Kothari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/11/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh:

For Respondent: Shri Prasanjit Singh, CIT,DR
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 70

…st income of subsequent year would amount to application of income of Trust for charitable purposes in subsequent year within meaning of section 11(1)(a). The cases Siddaramanna Charities Trust v/s CIT (1974) 96 ITR 275 ( Mys) and CIT v/s Matrisva Trus (2000) 242 ITR 20/ (2003) 128 Taxman 261 ( Mad) are also relevant. This issue was debated in CIT vs Fylaharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (1987) 164 ITR 439 (Raj) and it was opined that application could be considered to have taken place in the year of adjustment , where the earlier year's income was not adequate to absorb the actual expenditure made Thus, a di…

DCIT(E), New Delhi vs. Dr. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4132/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Dr. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust Circle 1(1) Pandav Nagar, Naraina Road New Delhi Near Shadipur Depot, New Delhi Pan : Aaatd 8903 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Asima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 34Section 43C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Dr. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust Circle 1(1) Pandav Nagar, Naraina Road New Delhi Near Shadipur Depot, New Delhi PAN : AAATD 8903 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2018 Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Asima Neb, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(Exemptio…

Medical Trust of Seventh Day Adventists, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1708/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1708/Chny/2015. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-2011. Medical Trust Of Seventh Day Vs. The Deputy Director Of Income Tax, Adventists, Exemption I, Aa 148, Iii Avenue, Chennai Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040. [Pan Aaatm 5187A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar
Section 12ASection 28

…,746 ITA No.1708 /2015 :- 4 -: Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee was eligible for claiming carry forward of such excess by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Matriseva Trust, 242 ITR 20. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 8. income of the trust was not to be computed as per Section 28 to 44DB of the Act. According to him, the question of spending money in excess of income would arise only when there was real income. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee could not say that it had spent a su…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2621/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 70

…with the current year the reliance was placed on following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987 ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995 iii) CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20(Mad) 2000 iv) Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 110 (Bom)2003 v) CIT vs Institute of Banking , 264 ITR 110 (Bom)2003 vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trsut, 197 TAxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP)2012 5. Ld. CIT (A) following the precedence of various jurisdictional High Court directed the AO to allow the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2620/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 70

…with the current year the reliance was placed on following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987 ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995 iii) CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20(Mad) 2000 iv) Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 110 (Bom)2003 v) CIT vs Institute of Banking , 264 ITR 110 (Bom)2003 vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trsut, 197 TAxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP)2012 5. Ld. CIT (A) following the precedence of various jurisdictional High Court directed the AO to allow the…

The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Ahmedabad vs. National Innovation Foundation India, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2205/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhसव"ी राजपाल यादव "या"यक सद"य एवं Vejth Vejth Vejthr Flag Vejth R Flag R Flag लेखा सद"य, के सम"। R Flag

For Appellant: Shri Chandresh S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr.D.R
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…ng to Rs.1,00,97,909/- and in the said statement of income itself it has relied upon the judgments of CIT vs Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 439 (Raj), CIT vs Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak Jam Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Guj), CIT vs Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Mad) and Govindu Naicker Estate vs ADI 248 ITR 368 (Mad). The appellant also submitted the order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act for A.Y 2010-11. It is apparent from this order that the then A.O has accepted the total income as per return at Rs. Nil. However, the A.O is silent or has not referred to the carry forward of deficit of Rs.1,00,97,909/- f…

The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3026/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3025/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3024/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3023/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3022/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

The Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3021/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2988/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2987/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2986/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2985/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Willingdon Charitable Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2984/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…rd to carry forward the excess application of ₹6,94,54,741/- to the subsequent years. 22. Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(Appeals), by following the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20, allowed the claim of the assessee by holding that the deficiency in one year can be set off against the excess application of subsequent year. According to the Ld. D.R., the excess application of income, in a particular year cannot be adjusted with deficiency in another year. 23. We heard Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. Th…

Services Association of Seventh Day Adventists P Ltd., Chennai vs. ADIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1710/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1710/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr.S.Nataraja, JCIT
Section 11(1)(a)Section 32

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी जॉज" माथन, "या"यक सद य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद य के सम% BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1710/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. M/s.Services Association of Seventh- The ADIT (Exemptions)-III, Day Adventists (P) Ltd., Chennai-34. AA 148, III Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. [PAN: AAACS 9035 J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) : Mr.R.M.Narayanan, CA अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.S.Nataraja, JCIT ()यथ' क*…

The Dy. Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad vs. Ramanbhai Foundation, Ahmedabad

ITA 3035/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri N.K. Billaiya)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jigar Patel, A.R

…gh Courts in the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking [264 ITR 110 (Bom.)]; (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Siddaramanna Charities Trust [96 ITR 275 (Mys); and (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Matriseva Trust [242 ITR 20 (Mad.)] 8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking (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 consideration is: whether excess of exp…