CIT v. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust

360 ITR 598High Court2014#15708 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 144 Section 147 Section 253(5)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(2)speaking order section 139 condonation of delay section 11 previous year section 13 prescribed nfac person india

Judgments citing CIT v. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Cnc Cac Charitites, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1485/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1485/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms.N.V.Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

…e assessee has argued before us that it is well within its right to have filed Form-10 manually. In support of its contentions, reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motiram Gopichand Charitable Trust reported in 360 ITR 598. It was stated that in the impugned order Hon’ble High Court had said that once a Form-10 was available to the Ld.AO the primary requirement for the Ld.AO was to have verified the contents thereof and not get into the controversy of procedural requirements. The Ld. AO ought to have considered the substance and not the form of the controversy. The…

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)

…If the funds have been used for the objects of the organisation in the subsequent years, addition of the income is not justified Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust. [360 ITR 598] 14. It is also submitted that appellant submitted the Form 10 to Id CIT Exemption (for AY 2010-11) with delay condonation request, however same has been rejected. 15 Further, it is humbly submitted that all the information which is covered under the Form 10 was duly available with the Id AO. Copy of Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account.…

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)

Shafa Home, New Delhi vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward 2(1), New Delhi

Appeal stands allowed for statistical

ITA 725/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 143(3)

…at even if the Form is submitted during the course of assessment proceedings the AO ought to have given benefit to the assessee. In support of this contention he has relied upon various case, including – - CIT v. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust [2014] 360 ITR 598 (All); - Institution of Civil Engineers Society v. ACIT [2021] 91 ITR (T) 56 (Chandigarh ITAT); - ITO (E) v. Shri Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva (ITA No. 410/Ahd/22) (Ahmedabad ITAT); and - SS Charitable Trust Vs. ITO, Exemption (ITA no. 49/Ran/2022 for A.Y. 2016-17) order dated 28.04.2023. 3. On the other hand, learned DR opposed the submissions…

The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Exemptions, C-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 17

…x Return and Form 10B and were already available with your goodself. Hence there was no intention of any misdoing. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust reported at 360 ITR 598. 12.1 The A.O. however did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and denied the claim of the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act by observing as under: 10. I have considered the reply of the assessee, however, the same is not acceptable. Section 11 (2) of the Act was amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. A.Y. 2016-17. The amend…

Sadhana Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Directore of Income Tax (Exemp)-I(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2090/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sadhana Education Society Deputy Director Of Juhu Road, Juhu Santacruz- Income Tax (Exemp)-I(2), Vs. West Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400054. Lalbaugh, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aacts1810N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Aarti Sathe, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2018

For Appellant: Mrs. Aarti Sathe, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)

…e accumulation of benefit u/s 11(2) may be granted. The Ld. counsel relies on the order of the ITAT ‘E’ Bench, Mumbai in the case of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 (ITA No. 7349/Mum/2011) and the decision in CIT v. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust (2014) 360 ITR 598 (All.), Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) (2007) 211 CTR 354 (Del), Director of Income Tax v. Mitsui & Co. Environmental Trust (2007) 211 CTR 352 (Del), Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Envisions (2015) 378 ITR 483 (Karn), Samaj Seva Nidhi v. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 507 (T&AP). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR suppo…