CIT v. Mayur Foundation

274 ITR 562High Court2005#1675 most cited

What is CIT v. Mayur Foundation authority for?

The Gujarat High Court held that Form No. 10, for exercising the option under section 11(2) to accumulate income, can be submitted during assessment proceedings, including before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is a continuation of assessment proceedings. Such submission constitutes sufficient compliance for claiming exemption under section 11.

68

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. Mayur Foundation · section 11(2) · Form No. 10 · accumulation of income · charitable trust exemption · assessment proceedings · ITAT · procedural compliance · late filing · section 11 · 274 ITR 562

Sections most often in play

Section 11(2)Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 12

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)(a)section 80j(6a)section 10(20a)section 10(20)section 12a(1)(b)section 11(5)section 11(2)section 12aa(3)section 58section 13(1)(d)accumulation of incomesection 13(8)

Judgments citing CIT v. Mayur Foundation

SHREE AMIZIRA PARSHWANATH SWETAMBAR JAIN TIRTH TRUST,AMIJHERA vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

Appeal is allowed accordingly

ITA 292/IND/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Shree Amizira Parshwanath Ito Swetamber Jain Tirth Trust Dhar बनाम/ Amzera Sardarpur Vs. Dhar (Assessee/ Appellant) (Revenue/ Respondent) Pan: Aamts9264J Assessee By Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

…, order dated 16.11.2022 where a similar controversy has been decided in favour of assessee, after following the decisions of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries reported in 201 ITR 325 and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation reported in 274 ITR 562. The relevant paragraphs of the order of ITAT are as under: “12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As per the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, it is necessary for the assessee in order to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act to get the accounts audited as well…

KHEMKA CHARITY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD 1(4), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Processing Of Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 251

…lable at the time of filing return of income and was not filed due to bona fide reasons, the benefit of section 11 cannot be denied, if otherwise assessee is eligible for such claim. We find that Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in in CIT Vs Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Gujarat) held that Form No.10 for exercising option under section 11(2) of the Act can be submitted at the time of assessment proceedings and accepted the contention of the assessee that proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a continuation of an assessment proceedings and submission of Form No.10 before the Tribunal can be trea…

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…on of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer vs., DCIT (supra), while considering an identical issue has held in paras 4.1 to 6.1 as under : 4.1. In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed on the decisions of this court in CIT v. Mayur Foundation (20051.274 ITR 562 (Guj.) in CIT v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.). Ltd. (2014) 41. taxmann.com 1841/221 Taxman 43 (Mag). (Guj.) in CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 8 ITA.No.365 & 1307/Hyd./2025 120061.285 ITR 147(AP) and CIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust [1992] 65 Taxman 273/195 ITR 825 (Cal). 5. The decision of the Divi…

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

…on of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer vs., DCIT (supra), while considering an identical issue has held in paras 4.1 to 6.1 as under : 4.1. In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed on the decisions of this court in CIT v. Mayur Foundation (20051.274 ITR 562 (Guj.) in CIT v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.). Ltd. (2014) 41. taxmann.com 1841/221 Taxman 43 (Mag). (Guj.) in CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation 8 ITA.No.365 & 1307/Hyd./2025 120061.285 ITR 147(AP) and CIT v. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust [1992] 65 Taxman 273/195 ITR 825 (Cal). 5. The decision of the Divi…

ROSHNI HOMI DAJI BAHU UDDESHIYA SHIKSHA AVM SARVAJANIK NYAS,INDORE vs. CPC, BENGLURU, BENGLURU

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2023-24 Roshni Homi Daji Bahu Cpc, Bengaluru Uddeshiya Shiksha Avm Sarvajanik Nyas, बनाम/ 119, Kanlindi Kunj, Vs. Pipliyahana Square, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaetr9004R Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.09.2025

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(10)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

…, order dated 16.11.2022 where a similar controversy has been decided in favour of assessee, after following the decisions of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries reported in 201 ITR 325 and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation reported in 274 ITR 562. The relevant paragraphs of the order of ITAT are as under: “12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As per the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, it is necessary for the assessee in order to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act to get the accounts audited as well…

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…the correct income may be assessed, and justice may be rendered to the charitable organization in accordance with the provisions of law. (Paper Book Page Number 1) Reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT v. Mayur Foundation, (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj.) Relevant extracts of the said case law are as below "9. At first blush, the reading of the aforesaid pronouncement gives an impression that the stand of the revenue is correct, inasmuch as a notice in writing furnishing the prescribed particulars should be submitted before the assessing authority and a completed assessment cannot be re-ope…

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…the correct income may be assessed, and justice may be rendered to the charitable organization in accordance with the provisions of law. (Paper Book Page Number 1) Reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT v. Mayur Foundation, (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj.) Relevant extracts of the said case law are as below "9. At first blush, the reading of the aforesaid pronouncement gives an impression that the stand of the revenue is correct, inasmuch as a notice in writing furnishing the prescribed particulars should be submitted before the assessing authority and a completed assessment cannot be re-ope…

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

…ociation [2001] 114 Taxman 255 (SC)/[2001] 247 ITR 201 (SC)/[2001] 165 CTR 1 (SC)[13-12-2000] in support of claim that Form No. 10 could be filed before the assessment proceedings. It was also submitted that in CIT v Mayur Foundation [2005] 194 CTR (Guj.) 194/274 ITR 562 (Guj.), it has been held that Form No. 10 can be filed at any time during the assessment proceeding. It was also submitted that this is not covered under the prima facie adjustment. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the delay in filing of Form No. 10 after the due date of filing of return of income can be condoned but not rectif…

GRAM VIKAS TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, BERAMPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

…ociation [2001] 114 Taxman 255 (SC)/[2001] 247 ITR 201 (SC)/[2001] 165 CTR 1 (SC)[13-12-2000] in support of claim that Form No. 10 could be filed before the assessment proceedings. It was also submitted that in CIT v Mayur Foundation [2005] 194 CTR (Guj.) 194/274 ITR 562 (Guj.), it has been held that Form No. 10 can be filed at any time during the assessment proceeding. It was also submitted that this is not covered under the prima facie adjustment. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that the delay in filing of Form No. 10 after the due date of filing of return of income can be condoned but not rectif…

NEW BOMBAY MERCHANTS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

…at) held that has held that where the assessee-trust for past many years had substantially satisfied conditions for claiming exemption under section 11, same could not be denied for non-filing of Form No. 10 in time. Further, in CIT Vs Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Gujarat) held that Form No.10 for exercising option under section 11(2) of the Act can be submitted at the time of assessment proceedings and accepted the contention of the assessee that proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a continuation of an 3 New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation assessment proceedings and submissio…

SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

…mitted that since the matter had not attained finality at the time of fresh application the assessee was justified in applying for new registration. 9. Referring to the decision of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj), he submitted that the Hon‟ble High Court in the said decision has held that Assessment proceedings remain pending until the Tribunal disposes of the appeal and its order is given effect by the assessing authority. Hence, a proceeding cannot be considered complete until the appeal process is exhausted. 10. Referring to the decision of the…

DR. PRABHA ATRE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Brahme and Shri Jayant Bhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, SR. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…, order dated 16.11.2022 where a similar controversy has been decided in favour of assessee, after following the decisions of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in CIT vs. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries reported in 201 ITR 325 and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation reported in 274 ITR 562. The relevant paragraphs of the order of ITAT are as under: “12. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. As per the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, it is necessary for the assessee in order to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act to get the accounts audited as well…

ODISHA SPORTS DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION COMPANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 498/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, dt. 16th Nov., 2022), CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 43 (Guj), Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 134 CTR (Guj) 288: (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 197: (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) followed. 6. It was the submission that as the assessee has filed its return u/s.139(4) and also filed Form 9A and the same was available with the AO when the assessment was being framed, the assessee is therefore entitled to exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act. It was the submission that even Form 10 was filed on 31.03.2009 through the same was…

ODISHA SPORTS DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION COMPANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION WARD, JEYPORE

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

ITA 497/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, dt. 16th Nov., 2022), CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 43 (Guj), Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 134 CTR (Guj) 288: (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 197: (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) followed. 6. It was the submission that as the assessee has filed its return u/s.139(4) and also filed Form 9A and the same was available with the AO when the assessment was being framed, the assessee is therefore entitled to exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act. It was the submission that even Form 10 was filed on 31.03.2009 through the same was…

ODISHA SPORTS DEVELOPMENT ANDPROMOTION COMPANY,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION WARD, BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 496/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.496-498/Ctk/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Odisha Sports Development & Vs Dcit, Exemption Ward, Promotion Company, Bhubaneswar Western Stand, Kalinga Stadium Bhubaneswar, Odisha Pan No. :Aabco 9237 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated All Dated 30.09.2024, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1069244316(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244321(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069244327(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, 2016-2017 & 2017-2018. 2. Shri P.R.Mohanty, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar Of The Assessee That The Assessee Is A Company Promoted By The Government Of Odisha. It Was The Submission That The Company’S Accounts Were Audited By Statutory Auditors. It Was The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(ITA No. 2312/Ahd/2018, dt. 16th Nov., 2022), CIT vs. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P) Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxman 43 (Guj), Zenith Processing Mills vs. CIT (1996) 134 CTR (Guj) 288: (1996) 219 ITR 721 (Guj) and CIT vs. Mayur Foundation (2005) 194 CTR (Guj) 197: (2005) 274 ITR 562 (Guj) followed. 6. It was the submission that as the assessee has filed its return u/s.139(4) and also filed Form 9A and the same was available with the AO when the assessment was being framed, the assessee is therefore entitled to exemption u/s.11(2) of the Act. It was the submission that even Form 10 was filed on 31.03.2009 through the same was…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…ation was required to be furnished before the completion of assessment. He also rejected the plea of the assessee to treat the Form No.10 as additional evidence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation, 274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Cour…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…ation was required to be furnished before the completion of assessment. He also rejected the plea of the assessee to treat the Form No.10 as additional evidence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation, 274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Cour…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

…ation was required to be furnished before the completion of assessment. He also rejected the plea of the assessee to treat the Form No.10 as additional evidence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation, 274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Cour…

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

…ation was required to be furnished before the completion of assessment. He also rejected the plea of the assessee to treat the Form No.10 as additional evidence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation, 274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Cour…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

…ation was required to be furnished before the completion of assessment. He also rejected the plea of the assessee to treat the Form No.10 as additional evidence in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mayur Foundation, 274 ITR 562, on account of the fact that the period of five years as mentioned in section 11(2)(A) had already expired on 31.03.2012. He, therefore, held that the assessee could not put the clock back to utilize the accumulated or set apart income for the purpose specified by the notice in writing. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerela High Cour…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4