CIT v. Sankalp Welfare Society

303 ITR 64Reported decision2008#17674 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 12A Section 139(1)Section 12 Section 10(23C)(via)Section 119(2)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 139(9)revenue expenditure section 12a section 139 section 12 section 139(1)section 143(1)section 11 section 13 section 143 section 14

Judgments citing CIT v. Sankalp Welfare Society

GOSWAMI BHAGWAN LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, FARIDABAD

ITA 2238/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 10Section 10(230)Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…the Act nor the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) in rejecting the alternate claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act: (i) Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust 195 ITR 825, (Cal), (ii) Calcutta Management Association 42 ITD 62, (iii) Sankulp Welfare Society 303 ITR 64, (iv) National Horticulture Board 176 taxman.167 and (v) Sahja Nand Charity Trust 228 ITR 292. 5 Goswami Bhagwan Lal Education Society 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO had erred in disallowing the expenditure (revenue & capital expenditure), in entirety, claimed in the ITR which had been incurred exclusively to earn income. Such d…

MADHYAM,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- EXEMP 1(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1456/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

…submitted that the Ld. AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act: (i) Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust 195 ITR 825, (Cal) (ii) Calcutta Management Association 42 ITD 62 (iii) Sankulp Welfare Society 303 ITR 64 (iv) National Horticulture Board 176 taxman.167 (v) Sahja Nand Charity Trust 228 ITR 292 5. Alternatively, the Ld. Counsel submitted that after rejection the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, at most the income as per the Income & Expenditure account of the assessee would have been taxed instead of the gross receipts of Rs.51,29,004…

P D MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. DLC-CA-2, RANGE- 48, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3784/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)

…AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act: (i) Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust 195 ITR 825, (Cal) (ii) Calcutta Management Association 42 ITD 62 5 P.D.Memorial Trust (iii) Sankulp Welfare Society 303 ITR 64 (iv) National Horticulture Board 176 taxman.167 (v) Sahja Nand Charity Trust 228 ITR 292 4.1 Alternatively, the Ld. AR submitted that after rejection the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, at most the income as per the Income & Expenditure account of the assessee would have been taxed instead of the gross receipts of Rs.40,06,33,279/…

THE VEDIC CULTURE CENTRE,DELHI vs. ITO WARD(EXEMPTION)-2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 780/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.780/Del./2025, A.Y. 2022-23 The Vedic Culture Centre Income Tax Officer, 7, Institutional Area Ward (Exemption)-2(3), Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3 Vs. Civic Centre, Minto Road, Pan: Aaatt0811G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: d. determining taxable income at Rs.75,60,590/-against NIL return

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

…ons, submitted that the AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act: (i) Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust 195 ITR 825, (Cal) (ii) Calcutta Management Association 42 ITD 62 (iii) Sankulp Welfare Society 303 ITR 64 (iv) National Horticulture Board 176 taxman.167 (v) Sahja Nand Charity Trust 228 ITR 292 4.1 Alternatively, the Ld. Counsel submitted that after rejection the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act, at most the income as per the instead of the gross receipts of Rs.75,60,590/-. The corresponding expenditure of Rs.67,41,795/- claimed agains…

DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI vs. KAMDHENU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7010/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7010/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 15(3) Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Developers Tardeo Road, 20 Shanti Centre, Sector 17, Mumbai Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 705 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk 0461 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : (I) Shri Sunil Pathak (Ar) (Ii)Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi(Ar) सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2007-08, In The Matter U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, Wherein The Following Three Grounds Taken Of The Assessee. (I) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/- Inspite Of The Fact That The Claim For Deduction Was Not Made In The Original Return & Was Only Made In The Return Filed, For A.Y. 2007-08, On 31.08.2009, Which Is Not A Valid Return In The Eye Of Law & Also Cannot Be Treated As „Revised Return‟ U/S. 139(5).” (Ii) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/-, As The Same Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80A(5), Effective From 01.04.2003, Which Does Not Permit Allowance Of Deduction Unless The Claim For Deduction Is Made In The Return Of Income.”

For Appellant: (i) Shri Sunil Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80A(5)Section 80I

…the 7 tax audit report along with return is not a mandatory condition as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT cs. Rai Bahadur Bissesswarlal Motilal Malwasie Trust (1992) 195 ITR 825 (Cal) as well as in the case of CIT vs. Sankalp Welfare Society (2008) 303 ITR 64 (P & H). The audit report can be furnished before completing the assessment as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT cs. Dr. L.M. Singhvi (2007) 207 CTR (Raj) 452 : (2007) 289 ITR 425 (Raj.). It may be out of place to mention that furnishing the audit report and the certificate for claiming the exemption under s. 80HHC in form 10CCAC was trea…