CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation

248 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2001#1258 most cited

What is CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation authority for?

The 15% exemption available to charitable trusts under Section 11(1)(a) is absolute and is not curtailed by the provisions of Section 11(2) regarding accumulation of income. Voluntary contributions received towards the corpus of a trust are excluded from the scope of income for Section 11(1)(a) exemption purposes.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation · Programme for Community Organisation · Section 11(1)(a) · Section 11(2) · Section 12(1) · 15% absolute exemption · accumulation of income · corpus donation · voluntary contributions · charitable trust income exemption

Also reported as

116 Taxmann.com 608

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(4A)Section 12AASection 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(4)section 12a(a)section 2(45)section 11(1)(a)accumulation of incomesection 11(1)(d)section 11(1)section 11(2)corpus donationapplication of incomesection 2(15)child

Judgments citing CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation

Shri Lalji Velji Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) II-(1), Mumbai

ITA 5323/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Jignesh R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

…tion at the rate of 25% (now after amendment 15%) on the gross receipts and not on the total income as determined by the AO under the Act. We also find that the issue is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Programme for Community Organisation (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it is held that as the assessee trust has received donation in aggregate a sum of ₹ 2,57,376 and it has applied throughout for its charitable purposes the amount of Rs. 1,70,369/- levying a balance of Rs. 87,010/- and on this the Hon’ble Supreme Court said as per section 11(1)(a) that the assessee trust was entitled to accumulate 25%…

Shri Lalji Velji Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) II-(1), Mumbai

ITA 5322/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Jignesh R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147

…tion at the rate of 25% (now after amendment 15%) on the gross receipts and not on the total income as determined by the AO under the Act. We also find that the issue is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Programme for Community Organisation (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC), wherein it is held that as the assessee trust has received donation in aggregate a sum of ₹ 2,57,376 and it has applied throughout for its charitable purposes the amount of Rs. 1,70,369/- levying a balance of Rs. 87,010/- and on this the Hon’ble Supreme Court said as per section 11(1)(a) that the assessee trust was entitled to accumulate 25%…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore

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

ITA 885/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. The Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041. … Respondent Pan:Aaalf 0023 C & C.O.No.30/Bang/2017 (In Ita No.885/Bang/2016) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences, Bengaluru. … Cross-Objector/ Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : S/Shri R.N.Parbat & Nambirajan (Drs) Assessee By : Shri C.Suman Lunkar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C.Suman Lunkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri R.N.Parbat & Nambirajan (DRs)
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of ITA No.805 & 885/Bang/2016 & CO No.30/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 8 income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed.” Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decision we dismiss the grounds of appeal raise…

The Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science Karnataka, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 805/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. The Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences, 4Th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041. … Respondent Pan:Aaalf 0023 C & C.O.No.30/Bang/2017 (In Ita No.885/Bang/2016) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences, Bengaluru. … Cross-Objector/ Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : S/Shri R.N.Parbat & Nambirajan (Drs) Assessee By : Shri C.Suman Lunkar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri C.Suman Lunkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri R.N.Parbat & Nambirajan (DRs)
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of ITA No.805 & 885/Bang/2016 & CO No.30/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 8 income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed.” Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decision we dismiss the grounds of appeal raise…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. Sri. K.R. Kaviraj, Hospet

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT-II (D.R)
Section 10Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

…of the appellant against gross receipts as claimed by the appellant. 10. The appellants submit that the findings of the lower authorities are contradictory to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation [2001] 248 ITR 1/116 Taxman 608 (Se) and also Board's Circulars and other case laws on the subject. 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing set off of excess application of the assessment year 2010-11 against the income of the appellants trust for the assessment year 2011-12. 6 12. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deducti…

M/S Sri Aurobindo Complex Trust, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1672/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Lokesh Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 11

…on net receipts or gross receipts. 3. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation as reported in 248 ITR 1, copy available on pages 117 to 119 of the paper book and in particular, my attention was drawn to page 119 of the paper book. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 2 ITA No. 1672(Bang)2017 4. I have considered the rival submissions. In the case cited by the learned AR of the assessee, it was held that the accum…

M/S R K Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1595/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 11

…on net receipts or gross receipts. 3. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation as reported in 248 ITR 1 and in particular, my attention was drawn to Para 3 of this judgment. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 2 ITA No. 1595(Bang)2017 4. I have considered the rival submissions. In the case cited by the learned AR of the assessee, it was held that the accumulation has to be computed at the prescribed percentage o…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vidyanidhi Education Trust, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1073/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 28

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. . . . . . Following the ratio laid down in the above decision of the coordinate bench, we dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 07. In the result,…

ACIT-(E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, Bangalore

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, No.17, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 052. … Respondent Pan:Aaatb 0895 L

For Appellant: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Muralidhar, H, Advocate
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 8. The final grounds of appeal relates to carry forward of excess application of income to subsequent years. This issue is covered against the revenue by co-ordinat…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Gokula Education Foundation (Medicall), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1609/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. . . . . . Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decision we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue. ITA Nos.1609 to 1613/Bang/2016 P…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Gokula Education Foundation (Hospital), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1605/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. . . . . . Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above decision we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue. ITA Nos.1609 to 1613/Bang/2016 P…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Taralabalu Bruhanmatt, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 893/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamalakar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…case of Jyothi Charitable Trust (60 taxmann.com Page 3 of 15 165)(Bang-Trib.). The CIT(A) allowed the accumulation of 15% of gross receipts following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programma for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1) and also allowed carry forward of excess application of income to the subsequent years following the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. City Hospital Charitable Trust (42 ITR (Trib) 583) and DCIT vs. Manipal Academy of Higher Education (44 ITR(Trib) 18 ). 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the revenue is in appeal before us in the…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai vs. Nandlal Taolani Charitabhle Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is

ITA 200/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asst. Cit Central Circle 17 & 28 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri V K Agarwal
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(3)(e)

…e courts of law as representing the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions and the requirement of the law, as in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation [1997] 228 ITR 620 (Ker), since approved by the apex court (reported at [2001] 248 ITR 1 (SC)), to which (latter) decision reference stands also made by the ld. CIT(A). This aspect of the matter, i.e.,the manner of computation of income of a charitable or religious trust/institution which has to be applied for the said purposes, has been a subject matter of a number of decisions, as by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case…

Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 17 & 18, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the revenue is

ITA 1110/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal, Vp & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06 Asst. Cit Central Circle 17 & 28 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri V K Agarwal
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(3)(e)

…e courts of law as representing the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions and the requirement of the law, as in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation [1997] 228 ITR 620 (Ker), since approved by the apex court (reported at [2001] 248 ITR 1 (SC)), to which (latter) decision reference stands also made by the ld. CIT(A). This aspect of the matter, i.e.,the manner of computation of income of a charitable or religious trust/institution which has to be applied for the said purposes, has been a subject matter of a number of decisions, as by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case…

Official Liquidator

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

OLR/1/2017HC Karnataka20 Apr 2017

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 11Section 260Section 260A

…ainst the revenue in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION' (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC)Iand another decision of Supreme Court in 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. PROGRAMME FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION' (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC). The aforesaid submission could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. 5 4. From perusal of the record, we find that the substantial question of law No.2 is covered by the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the same is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. However,…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sharddha Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 899/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Shraddha Trust, No.37/10, Yellappa Chetty Layout, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru-560042. … Respondent Pan: Aacts 7373J

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel for DepartmentFor Respondent: None
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…e case of Jyothi Charitable Trust (60 taxmann.com Page 6 of 16 165)(Bang-Trib.). The CIT(A) allowed the accumulation of 15% of gross receipts following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programma for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1) and also allowed carry forward of excess application of income to the subsequent years following the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. City Hospital Charitable Trust (42 ITR (Trib) 583) and DCIT vs. Manipal Academy of Higher Education (44 ITR(Trib) 18 ). 5. Being aggrieved by this order, the revenue is in appeal before us in th…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Stracey Memorial Educational Society, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 854/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel for DepartmentFor Respondent: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA
Section 11(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…he other grounds of appeal relates to Whether accumulation of income should be on gross receipt or net income after deducting the expenditure, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1)(SC) wherein it was held that 25% should be calculated on the gross receipts of income and not on the net income. Therefore, these grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3653/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…counsel contended that deduction from the gross total income of the trust was not allowed by the Assessing Officer for which our attention was invited to the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Program for Community Organization 248 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. DR defended the addition. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that the 10 M.L. Charitable Trust ITA Nos.3652, 3653 & 3893/Mum/2013 C.O. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessing Officer did not allowed deduction from the gross total income…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…counsel contended that deduction from the gross total income of the trust was not allowed by the Assessing Officer for which our attention was invited to the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Program for Community Organization 248 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. DR defended the addition. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that the 10 M.L. Charitable Trust ITA Nos.3652, 3653 & 3893/Mum/2013 C.O. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessing Officer did not allowed deduction from the gross total income…

M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…counsel contended that deduction from the gross total income of the trust was not allowed by the Assessing Officer for which our attention was invited to the Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Program for Community Organization 248 ITR 1 (SC). The ld. DR defended the addition. 4.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The crux of the argument on behalf of the assessee is that the 10 M.L. Charitable Trust ITA Nos.3652, 3653 & 3893/Mum/2013 C.O. No.142/Mum/2014 Assessing Officer did not allowed deduction from the gross total income…