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 (Exemption), New Delhi vs. Subros Educational Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 6240/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Joginder Singh, Jm Ita No. 6240/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs Subros Educational Society, Tax(E), Circle-2(1), G-71, World Trade Centre, New Delhi Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadts2161F Assessee By : Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.11.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.09.2016 By Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 70

…and the several case laws are as under:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987. 4 Subros Educational Society ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995. (in) 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, 264ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. (vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, 197 Taxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012 3.3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that even tho…

The Society for Social Education & Research, Chennai vs. ADIT, Chennai

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

ITA 838/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 06.11.2017
Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)

…ssessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In my opinion, as held by the Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust in [2000] 242 ITR 20 (Mad) that the assessee-trust is entitled to set off the amount of excess application of the last year against the deficiency of the present year. Further, in my opinion, the assessee has to apply 85% of the income towards 8 charitable objects subject to accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I direct the AO to re-compute the…

ACIT (Exemption) - 1(1), Mumbai vs. Gujrat Research Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-1(1) Gujrat Research Society Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Dr. Madhuri Shah Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Campus, Ram Krishna Mumbai-400012. Mission Marg, Mumbai-400052. Pan No. Aaatb1718N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rupam J. Shukla, Ar Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Rupam J. Shukla, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32

…vs. Shri Gujarati Samaj (Regd.) (2011) 64 DTR 76 (MP). vi. CIT vs. Punjab Mandi Board (2014) 98 DTR 267 (P&H) Gujrat Research Society 5 vii. CIT vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar (2016) 69 taxmann.com 425 (Raj). viii. CIT vs. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 4. As narrated hereinbefore both the above issues are squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Thus we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31/10/2017. (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31/10/2017 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarde…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Fortune Society for Development and Promotion of International Business, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

…cumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the excess application of the earlier year could not be set off against the income of the current year contrary to the judgment of this Honourable Court in the case of Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20(Mad)?’ 29. Learned senior counsel appearing for M/s.St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Cathedral Parish Trust, the assessee, Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman would contend that the excess application of earlier years was liable to set off against the income of the current year and relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of…

DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. City Educational and Social Welfare Society, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6070/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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 aqalnst - application of past years surplus expenditure has been held possible in CIT Vs Matri SewaTrust 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 loss due to surplus expenditure results, the same h…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. Pearey Lal Bhawan Association, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: SH. R.M. MEHTA, CAFor Respondent: SH. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 70

…oss/ deficit is to be allowed and the several case laws are as under:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987. ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandai, 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 Taxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012 4.3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that even t…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce & Industry, Bangalore

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

ITA 386/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanita No.386 /Bang/2016 (Asst. Year 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri DK Jha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri AC Raju, C.A
Section 1(1)(a)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 15Section 154Section 70

…ry Export Promotion Council Vs. ITO (68 ITD 95) IT Appellate Tribunal Mumbai ITA No.386/B/16 4 Dy. Director of Income Tax (E)-I(1), Maharashtra Indl. Development – Mumbai Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 4777/Mum/2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (Madras High Court) 6. The CIT(A) held as follows:- The AR mentioned that as per section 1(1)(a) there is no restriction that the entire income has to be applied in the same year only, which means that excess application can be set-off in the subsequent year out of receipt of income during the next year. As a corollary, therefore, it was claimed…

ITO, Mangalore vs. Dr. U. Krishna Muniyal Memorial Trust, Manipal

In the result, the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

…revenue income. The above views are supported by pronouncements of different High Courts/Tribunals in the following cases: (1) Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Audh Educational Society 203 Taxman 166 (All HC 2011) (2) Madras High Court in CIT Vs Matriseva Trust 242 ITR 20 (3) Tribunal decisions mentioned by appellate authority (Mad) As appreciated by learned assessing authority provisions of sec.72 of IT Act is not applicable in the present case but provisions of sec 11,12 & 13 of the Act permits the trust to make the application in advance as discussed in the preceeding paragraph which may please be appreciated. I…

Inter Church Service Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1253/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1253/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Inter Church Service Association, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.107 (Old No.93), V. (Exemptions)-Iv, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aaati 1256 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak John, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11o

…tion or not. According to the Ld. counsel, since the assessee is a registered Trust, the assessee is eligible for 3 I.T.A. No.1253/Mds/14 exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Referring to the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Matriseva Trust (2000) (242 ITR 20), the Ld.counsel submitted that on identical circumstances, the CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Shir Plot Sweatamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 ITR 293, followed the judgment of Gujarat High Court. A similar view was also taken by Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (1…

Asstt CIT (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. K.J.Somaiya Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3774/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 11(6)

…that carry forward of deficit of earlier years has to be set off against the surplus of subsequent years. Likewise, Hon’ble Delhi High Court by placing reliance upon the decision of the High Court in 211 ITR 293 (Guj.), 164 ITR 439 (Raj.), 264 ITR 110 (Bom.) 242 ITR 20 (Mad.) held that excess of expenditure over income in one year can be set off in subsequent year against the income u/s 11 as and by way of application of income. Respectfully following the aforementioned Hon’ble High Courts and specifically Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, I find no infirmity in the conclusion of the ld. Commissioner of Income…

M/S Sevasadan Orphanage and Training Institute, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S Sevasadan Orphanage & Training Institute, #347, Sarjapur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Circle – 17(2), Bangalore. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rukmani Attri, JCIT
Section 11(1)(a)

…(2001) 248 ITR 368 (Mad) • Dawath Institute of DB Community Vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 359 (Mum. ITAT) • CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 itr 293 (Guj.) • CIT Vs. Sacred Heart Church 278 ITR 180 (Guj.) • CIT Vs. Matriseva Trust (2000) 242 ITR 20 (Mad) • Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council Vs. ITO (1999) 68 ITD 95 (Mum) • CIT Vs. St. George Forane Church (1988) 170 ITR 62; 36 Taxman 42 (Ker.) • Trustees of Balkan J Bari (1979) 10 CTR (Trib) 22 (Bombay) • Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Vs. ITO 19 ITD 175 (Patna) 5. CIT(A) concluded the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT Bombay in case of ITO Vs…