What is CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association authority for?

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association?

112 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (247 ITR 201), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(2), Section 139(1), Section 12A, Section 143(3), Section 12AA.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (247 ITR 201)

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 2492/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Smriti Atreya & Shri Hemant Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N - JCIT

Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNADARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2491 & 2492/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 M/s. Aditi Educational Trust, C/o. Fiscal Law Partners, The Income Tax Officer Advocates, #32/2, 18th Cross, [Exemptions] Sadashivanagar, Vs. Ward- 1 Bengaluru - 560080. Bengaluru. PAN No: AABTA6204B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Smriti Atreya & Shri Hemant Pai, Advocates Respondent by : Shri. Balusamy. N - JCIT Date of Hearing : 09-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07-04-2026 O R D E R P…

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 2491/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Smriti Atreya & Shri Hemant Pai, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy. N - JCIT

Section 11Section 119Section 12ASection 143

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNADARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 2491 & 2492/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 M/s. Aditi Educational Trust, C/o. Fiscal Law Partners, The Income Tax Officer Advocates, #32/2, 18th Cross, [Exemptions] Sadashivanagar, Vs. Ward- 1 Bengaluru - 560080. Bengaluru. PAN No: AABTA6204B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Smriti Atreya & Shri Hemant Pai, Advocates Respondent by : Shri. Balusamy. N - JCIT Date of Hearing : 09-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07-04-2026 O R D E R P…

CHANGLANG COMMUNITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SOCIETY,CHANGLALNG vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), 2(4), SHILLONG

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

ITA 181/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati08 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

…late unspent funds within 3 Changlang Community Resources Management Society the due date the assessee registered under Section 12A of the Act, therefore exemption u/s 11(1)(a) cannot be granted as held in CIT Vs. Nagpur Hotels Industries Association (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC) and he also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. State Urban Development Society (2011), Tuticorn and Cloth Chemical Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC) and he further noted that the assessee could not substantiate its case. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved on the above order, the…

M/S. REGENCY CERAMICS LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITTA/525/2012HC Telangana18 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

…the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). 2. It is an admitted position, in view of several decisions of the Courts including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association : (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC), that the said Form-10 could be furnished by the assessee up to the stage of completion of the assessment under Section 143(3) of the said Act. The only point in issue in the present case is whether the Form-10 could be furnished by the assessee for the purposes of Section 11 of the said Act during the re-assessment proceedings. 3.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. AADHITYA FINCORP PVT LTD, CHENNAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi, Advocate

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 40A(3)Section 69A

…nable. 6.5.13 It is a settled legal principle that the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act applies only to expenditure and not to capital receipts or payments related to share capital. Judicial precedents, including CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (247 ITR 201), have held that the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act cannot be Invoked in cases where the transactions do not involve revenue expenditure. In view of the detailed discussion and judicial precedence the addition made by the AO lacks a legal and factual basis and is accordingly found to be unsustainable. Accordingly, all the grounds raised…

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate

Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…priate to say that the AO was deprived from scrutinising the revised reporting / claim of accumulation u/s.11(2)(a) of the Act. 22. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association, reported 247 ITR 201 while examining the validity of the claim of accumulation u/s.11(2)(a) of the Act in the event of the tax payer filing the same beyond the time limit prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act but during the course of assessment proceedings, had held as follows: “6. It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandat…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…udgement/Order : 26/07/2019 has, thus, held; “7. Admittedly, the statute does not prescribe any time limit for filing statutory Form No.10. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in “CIT -Vs- Nagpur Hotel Owners Association (247 ITR 201)” . In the said decision, it was pointed out that it is necessary that the Assessing Officer must have information as required under Rule 17 by furnishing Form10 and this information should be available with the Assessing Officer at the time when he completes the assessment and in the absence of any such information, it will not be possible for t…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DCIT, Panvel Circle, The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust New Panvel Vs. Administrative Building, Nhava Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ACIT, Panvel Circle, Administrative Building, Nhava Panvel Vs. Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (R…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DCIT, Panvel Circle, The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust New Panvel Vs. Administrative Building, Nhava Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ACIT, Panvel Circle, Administrative Building, Nhava Panvel Vs. Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (R…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DCIT, Panvel Circle, The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust New Panvel Vs. Administrative Building, Nhava Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ACIT, Panvel Circle, Administrative Building, Nhava Panvel Vs. Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (R…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DCIT, Panvel Circle, The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust New Panvel Vs. Administrative Building, Nhava Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ACIT, Panvel Circle, Administrative Building, Nhava Panvel Vs. Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (R…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1154/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DCIT, Panvel Circle, The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust New Panvel Vs. Administrative Building, Nhava Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ACIT, Panvel Circle, Administrative Building, Nhava Panvel Vs. Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (R…

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.543, 544 & 545/PUN/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 DCIT, Panvel Circle, The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust New Panvel Vs. Administrative Building, Nhava Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 Assessment years : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust ACIT, Panvel Circle, Administrative Building, Nhava Panvel Vs. Sheva, Tal – Uran, Dist. Raigad AAALJ0036D (Appellant) (R…

SHREE GHATKOPAR SARVAJANIK JIVDAYA KHATU ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Income Tax Officer, Exem Jivdaya Khatu Ward-2(3), Jivdaya Lane Agra Road, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400086 (Pan: Aabts9826R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Advocate and Ravi Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

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

…iling of such form is a mere procedural compliance so as to enable the ld. AO for entertaining the claim u/s.11 made by the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. The Nagpur Hotel Owners Association [2001] 247 ITR 201 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with requirement on filing of Form No.10 in reference to section 11(2) held that even though there is no valid limitation prescribed under the Rules for filing of Form No.10, yet such an intimation has to be furnished before the assessing authority any time before the assessment proceedings so as t…

RAJASTHAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 582/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 Rajasthan Ophthalmological cuke Income Tax Officer, Jaipur. Vs. Society 27A, Ocean Park Apartment, Kanti Chandra Road, Bani Park, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAR7029R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo…

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 444/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 444/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Bastuhara Sahayata Samiti,……………….…Appellant 27/1B, Bidhan Sarani, Srimini Market, Kolkata-700006, West Bengal [Pan:Aaatb7422R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), Kolkata, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsian, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 20, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…est of Revenue in the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there will be substantial compliance if the said Form No. 10 is filed by the assessee before the AO prior to completion of assessment proceedings, by holding as under [Source (2001) 247 ITR 201 (SC)]: 6. It is abundantly clear from the wordings of sub-section (2) of section 11 that it is mandatory for the person claiming the benefit of section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required under rule 17 in Form No. 10 of the Act. If during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer does not have the necessary i…

TARA MEERA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2668/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Praksh Kanttara Meera Education Trust Vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 2(4), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, 41-B, Azad Nagar Road No.2 Off Veera Desai Road, Andheri Cumbala Hills, Pedder Road, West, Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 026 Pan : Aaatt9673J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aamod Prabhudesai a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 11Section 12

…y been discussed and decided by co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal and also the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’be Supreme Court in the following cases:- 1. CIT vs G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd 71 taxmann.com 35 (SC) 2. CIT vs Nagpur Hotel Owner’s Association 247 ITR 201 (SC) 3. CIT (Exemption) vs Anjana Foundation (Gujarat) 168 taxmann.com 462 (Guj) 4. Association of Indian Patel board Manufacturer vs DCIT 157 taxmann.com 550 (Guj) 5. Kumbharwada Welfare Centre vs ITO ITA No.6388/Mum/2024, order dated 18/02/2025 6 . Metro Brands Limited vs DCIT 2(2)(1) ITA No.1004/Mum/2025 order dated 17/06/2025 More particula…

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/s Barrows Blue Bells School Civil Line Bahraich TAN/PAN:AAATB7151K (Appellant) v. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Lucknow (Respondent) Appellant by: Respondent by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R. ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders passed by the Learned Commissioner…

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

…and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C of the Act. Ground No. 5: Even otherwise since the delay in filing Form 10 is condonable one, (vide Board’s Circular No. 273 dt. 3/6/1980) Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the claim for deduction under section 11(2) without educating the assessee about the r…

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

…and reported in Form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Ground No. 3: Rejection of the claim under section 11(2), without notice to appellant, is incorrect and the same is against judicial decisions. Nagpur Hotel Owners’ Association 247 ITR 201 (SC). Ground No. 4: The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C of the Act. Ground No. 5: Even otherwise since the delay in filing Form 10 is condonable one, (vide Board’s Circular No. 273 dt. 3/6/1980) Assessing Officer ought not to have rejected the claim for deduction under section 11(2) without educating the assessee about the r…

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association

What is CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

CHANGLANG COMMUNITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SOCIETY,CHANGLALNG vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), 2(4), SHILLONG

M/S. REGENCY CERAMICS LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. AADHITYA FINCORP PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, CHENNAI

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

SHREE GHATKOPAR SARVAJANIK JIVDAYA KHATU ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

RAJASTHAN OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SOCIETY, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

BASTUHARA SAHAYATA SAMITI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(EXEMPTION),, KOLKATA

TARA MEERA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(4), MUMBAI

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

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

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