CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust (131 ITR 497), spanning 2015 to 2023.

131 ITR 497High Court1981#8605 most cited

What is CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust authority for?

Funds allocated or earmarked for charitable purposes are considered 'applied' even if not actually spent within the financial year. It is not necessary for money to be actually 'spent' to be treated as application.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust · section 11(1)(a) · section 11(1) · application of income · charitable purposes · earmarked funds · allocated funds · actual spending · deemed application

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 178

Issues it is cited on

section 11(1)(a)section 11(1)application of income section 11 india

Judgments citing CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust

DCIT (E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 626/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Suneja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ram Krishan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)(a)

…income available to the trust for application to charitable purposes in India in accordance with section 11(1)(a). 8. Reliance is being placed on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust (1981) 131 ITR 497 (AP) it has been held that it was not necessary that the money should have been actually 'spent for being treated as application. It would not be correct to equate the word 'applied' with the word 'spent' and therefore even the funds which have been allocated for the purposes will 4 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University be deemed to have been…

M/S. the Hunger Project, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1467/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Garg a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 250Section 40A(7)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1332/Mum./2021 ITA No.1467/Mum./2021 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) M/s. The Hunger Project Flat no.504, 5th Floor ……………. Appellant Shanti Vihar, Building no.A–9 Mira Road (East), Thane 401 107 PAN – AAATT0359B v/s Income Tax Officer (Exemp.) …………….Respondent Ward–2(4), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vinod Garg a/w Shri Jatin Proothi Revenue by : Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha Date of Hearing – 30/06/2022 Date of Order – 05/09/2022 O R D E…

M/S. the Hunger Project, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemtptions)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1332/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Garg a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 250Section 40A(7)

M/S Ursuline Franciscan Congregation, Mangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward-1, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1039/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal R. Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 139

…show that the amount has actually been ‘allocated to or earmarked for a charitable purpose in consonance with the objects of the Trust, even though the actual payment may be made later. We find support for this proposition in the case of CIT Vs. Nizams Trust 131 ITR 497. For example, a trust may purchase a vehicle before the end of the financial year, but actual payment be made subsequently. In this example, if the trust earmarks or allocate its funds towards payment of vehicle cost, it may be considered as having been “applied”. 7. In the instant case, the assessee has not shown that the amount kept in fixed d…

Lic Golden Jubilee Foundation, Mumbai vs. DCIT E) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3288/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blelic Golden Jubilee Foundation V. Dcit (Exemption)-1(1) Yogakshema, 7Th Floor Piramal Chambers Jeevan Bima Marg Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaatl5690D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Farrokh V. Irani Department By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi & Smita Verma

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi &

Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER LIC Golden Jubilee Foundation v. DCIT (Exemption)-1(1) Yogakshema, 7th Floor Piramal Chambers Jeevan Bima Marg Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012 Nariman point Mumbai - 400021 PAN: AAATL5690D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Farrokh V. Irani Department by : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi & Smita Verma Date of Hearing : 30.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea…

Lic Golden Jubilee Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 83/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

…specified in sub-section 5. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this method followed by assessee has approval of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam's Charitable Trust [1981] 131 ITR 497 (Andhra Pradesh). The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO and the CIT(A) has himself admitted the following clear note given by the assessee in this computation of income along with return of income, wherein vide 3(b) it is mentioned that the amount has been out of the last year application and set apart. Whereas, the AO as well a…

Lic Golden Jubilee Foundation, Mumbai vs. ACIT E) 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6813/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

Lic Golden Jubilee Foundation, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5281/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)

Commisisoner of Income Tax vs. Ohio University Christ College

ITA/312/2016HC Karnataka17 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 12ASection 260

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA ITA No.312/2016 and ITA No.313/2016 ITA No.312/2016 : BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Unity Building Annexe, Mission Road, Bangalore. 2. Dy. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle 17(2), Bangalore. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI: JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.) AND: Ohio University Christ College, Academy for Management Education, 4th Floor, Christ University Campus, Hosur Road, Bangalo…

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)

…finding out whether there has been an application of fund and if the liability for expenditure has 29 been incurred it would be sufficient as held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Trustees of HEH The Nizam’s Charitable Trust 131 ITR 497. The learned Authorised Representative has further contended that the assessee has offered the income on mercantile basis and part of receipts are not still received by the assessee trust during the year then the deduction aginst such income which was not received during the year should have been allowed in respect of computing the quantum of a…

ACIT(Exemption), Jaipur vs. Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 105/JP/16 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke ACIT (Exemption), Jaipur Mahima Shiksha Samiti, A-18, Vs. Shanti Path Tilak Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAATM 1883 H izR;FkhZ@Respondent vihykFkhZ@Appellant vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 30/JP/16 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Mahima Shiksha Samiti, A-18, ACIT (Exemption), Jai…

Asstt CIT (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. K.J.Somaiya Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3774/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 11(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asst. CIT(Exemption)I-1, K.J. Somaiya Trust, Room No.506, 5th Floor, 4th Floor, Fazalbhoy बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Building, 45-47, M.G. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Fort, Mumbai-400023 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AAATK0474C Assessment Year: 2008-09 K.J. Somaiya Trust, Asst. CIT(Exemption)II-1, 4th Floor, Fazalbhoy Room No.616, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Building, 45-47, M.G. Road, Piram…

Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore vs. Ohio University Christ College Academy for Management Education, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for both Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed

ITA 1075/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…le to Ohio University, USA and therefore it should be considered as having been applied under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. In support of its contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Trustees of HEH Nizam’s Charitable Trust (1981) 131 ITR 497 (A.P.) wherein it was held that the term ‘applied’ does not mean ‘spent’. It was also submitted that the decision rendered in the case of CIT V Trustees of HEH Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust (1977) 108 ITR 229 is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the assessee. 4.4.2 The learned Authorised Representative also submitted that the…