← All Phrases

“Section 11(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)516 judgments

SHANTI DEVI JAIN MEMORIAL TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1293/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Years: 2013-14

Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. JOSEPH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed, in the above terms

ITA 6930/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, & M.A.GohelFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (Ld. CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 833/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

record. It is not in dispute that for both the assessment years, assessee had not spent 85% of the amount as required by Section 11(1) of the Act. The balance falling short was invested in a nationalized bank. The only question is whether such investment can be treated ... application of income within the meaning of Section 11(1) and 11(5) of the Act read with the objects of the assessee- Trust. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce the objects as set out in Clause III of the MoA as under :- “1

DCIT vs. M/S THE VED PARKASH MUKAND LAL, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 832/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

record. It is not in dispute that for both the assessment years, assessee had not spent 85% of the amount as required by Section 11(1) of the Act. The balance falling short was invested in a nationalized bank. The only question is whether such investment can be treated ... application of income within the meaning of Section 11(1) and 11(5) of the Act read with the objects of the assessee- Trust. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce the objects as set out in Clause III of the MoA as under :- “1

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 825/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

record. It is not in dispute that for both the assessment years, assessee had not spent 85% of the amount as required by Section 11(1) of the Act. The balance falling short was invested in a nationalized bank. The only question is whether such investment can be treated ... application of income within the meaning of Section 11(1) and 11(5) of the Act read with the objects of the assessee- Trust. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce the objects as set out in Clause III of the MoA as under :- “1

THE VED PRAKASH MUKAND LAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,YAMUNANAGAR vs. DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals, for both the years, stand dismissed

ITA 824/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Mar 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.824/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.825/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Dcit Educational Society Circle Yamuna Nagar बनाम/ Vs. (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Haryana C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.833/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.832/Chandi/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit The Ved Prakash Mukand Lal Circle Yamuna Nagar Educational Society बनाम/ Haryana (Radaur, Yamuna Nagar) Vs. C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) #527, Sector – 10D, Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatv-4812-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Yamini (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual)

For Appellant: Sh. Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Yamini (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

record. It is not in dispute that for both the assessment years, assessee had not spent 85% of the amount as required by Section 11(1) of the Act. The balance falling short was invested in a nationalized bank. The only question is whether such investment can be treated ... application of income within the meaning of Section 11(1) and 11(5) of the Act read with the objects of the assessee- Trust. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to reproduce the objects as set out in Clause III of the MoA as under :- “1

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred is withdrawing the exemption allowed under section 11(1)(a) by the AO, without providing an alternate basis for taxation, particularly when section 10(23C)(iiiab) conditions were not conclusively fulfilled by the assessee

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5389/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred is withdrawing the exemption allowed under section 11(1)(a) by the AO, without providing an alternate basis for taxation, particularly when section 10(23C)(iiiab) conditions were not conclusively fulfilled by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5388/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred is withdrawing the exemption allowed under section 11(1)(a) by the AO, without providing an alternate basis for taxation, particularly when section 10(23C)(iiiab) conditions were not conclusively fulfilled by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5387/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred is withdrawing the exemption allowed under section 11(1)(a) by the AO, without providing an alternate basis for taxation, particularly when section 10(23C)(iiiab) conditions were not conclusively fulfilled by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5386/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred is withdrawing the exemption allowed under section 11(1)(a) by the AO, without providing an alternate basis for taxation, particularly when section 10(23C)(iiiab) conditions were not conclusively fulfilled by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5385/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred is withdrawing the exemption allowed under section 11(1)(a) by the AO, without providing an alternate basis for taxation, particularly when section 10(23C)(iiiab) conditions were not conclusively fulfilled by the assessee

ROTARY CLUB OF BOMBAY QUEENS NECKLACE CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8306/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Bijayananda Prusethrotary Club Of Bombay Vs Ito (Exem.) Ward 2(2), Mumbai Queens Necklace Charitable Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road Trust Mumbai-400020 B 41/45, Paragon Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaatr4200K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PatelFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR)
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

objects of the trust to the extent it does not exceed 15 per cent of income derived from property held in trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,31,790/- on the ground that the Appellant has not e-filed the Form No.10B being

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

under “Amount deemed to have been applied to charitable purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1)” but did not exercised his option by e- filing Form-9A before due date as per Rule-17 of the Income Tax Rules. Chitradurga ... deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1) of the Act. The assessee trust should have claimed deduction on account of permissible amount of accumulation or set apart for application to charitable

ULLAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1379/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Dr. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

arriving at the excess of income over expenditure has grossly ignored the capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income under section 11(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in law in not allowing accumulation under section 11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. SETH JAI PARKASH POLYTECHNIC SOCIETY, YAMUNA NAGAR

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

ITA 597/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR (Virtual)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

ultra vires the provisions of Chapter III of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the interpretation of "application of income" under Section 11(1)(a) can extend to the adjustment of past excess expenditure against future income, when such a mechanism is not explicitly provided in the statute

SHRI MANAV VIKAS FOUNDATION,CHAMARAJ, TL. VADHAVAN vs. ITO, WARD-2(EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the asessee is allowed

ITA 723/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 119(2)(b)Section 124(1)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

SRUSHTI CONSERVATION FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/PUN/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

activities of the assessee were in the nature of charitable purpose, and as such accepted by the Revenue in the past. Exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act has been granted to the assessee in the past, and there is no change in the facts and circumstances. Registration

NARROTAM MORARJEE INSTITUTE OF SHIPPING,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Narrotam Morarjee Institute Of National Faceless Shipping, Mumbai Assessment Appeal Centre 76 – Jolly Maker, Chambers – 2, (Nfac) Office Of The Vs. Vivek Shah, Mumbai, Nariman Commissioner Of Income Point S.O.-400021 Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A) Delhi (Pan : Aaatn0042R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025- 26/1078465227(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against The Penalty Order U/S. 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["The Cit (A)") U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act For Short Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Passed

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 270A

rate of 15 per cent was claimed even on the unutilized portion which is deemed to be income by applying provisions of Section 11(1)(a). According to the assessee, it is a debatable issue and, therefore, penalty u/s 270A is not imposable. 7.1. Also, assessee had a bona fide

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2289/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

voluntary contributions to be treated as income under section 12 and the corpus donations to be treated as capital receipt under section 11(1)(d). The corpus donations are not generally in the nature of income. The voluntary contributions are taxable only if not applied for charitable purposes. [Para ... receipts acknowledging said amount towards building fund and made requisite entries in the books and deposited same in the bank, then requirement of section 11(1)(d) is fulfilled. Further voluntary contributions received were for the specific purpose of "building" and assessee had applied such contributions towards object of trust

Showing 1–20 of 516 · Page 1 of 26

...