“Section 11(1)(a)”

The Bombay St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

addition of INR.45,00,000/-, being amount deemed to have been applied during the previous year as per Clause (2) of Explanation to Section 11(1) of the Act), was made in the hands of the Assessee. It is the contention of the Assessee that the aforesaid disallowance/addition was made ... disallowing the amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose or for the stated objects of the trust under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee not filed the Form No.10B within the specified due date. 15. Being aggrieved

Rithwik Foundation for Performing Arts, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

hypothetical and not supported by any actual conduct of the assessee. Moreover, incurring of merely incidental expenditure outside Indiadoes not violate provision of section 11(1) of the Act and what is intended to beprohibited is carrying on of charitable activity outside India. In the present case, admittedly, the charitable ... does not completely rule out exemption to incomes applied outside India for charitable purposes, granting exemption to certain such applications, as mentioned in section 11(1)(c), subject to being approved by the Board. 12. As is evident from the above, in the scheme of the Act, incomes applied outside

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Circle-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnational Institute Of Construction Management & Research, Walchand Centre, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, Ac Market ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400034 Pan : Aaatn1348J V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 2, ……………… Respondent Cumbala Hill, Telephone Exchange, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Mig Cricket Club, Mumbai vs. DCIT(E)-2, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

assessee after granting exemption under section II and treating the corpus donations as capital receipts, and allowing the 15% statutory deduction under section 11(1)(a) as claimed in accordance with the law.” 12. In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case

Shree Dandeshwar Shankar Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem)-1, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailshree Dandeshwar Shankar Mandir Trust, 72, Khar Danda Koliwada, Khar West, Mumbai – 400052 ............... Appellant Pan: Aajts6534L V/S Central Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, ……………… Respondent Bangalore.

assessee was processed vide intimation dated 09.03.2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Act denying the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11(1)(a) of the Act aggregating to Rs.17,88,405/- on the basis that the assessee has not e-filed the audit report in Form ... income. 4. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the denial of exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

after adjusting the TDS refund of Rs. 41,461/- against the Appellant: 2.1.1 A sum of Rs.6,73,510/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act being the amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purposes or for the stated objects of the trust ... assessee after granting exemption under section II and treating the corpus donations as capital receipts, and allowing the 15% statutory deduction under section 11(1)(a) as claimed in accordance with the law.” 12. In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case

Peoples Mobile Hospital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

revenue expenditure incurred to be allowed as application of income Page 3 ITA NO. 4116/mum/2025. 2.1.2 A sum of Rs.56,53,521/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act being amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purposes or for the stated objects

University of Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarita No. 5392/Mum/2025 (Ay: 2016-17) University Of Mumbai Ito (Exemption) - 2(3), Mumbai 12/Accounts Department, Vs. M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai- Ch-616, 6Th Floor, Mtnl, 400032. Ex-Building, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Pan: Aaatu1070A Mumbai-400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

while disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act and not granting the exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, however, despite of affording various opportunities by the Ld. Commissioner, the assessee made no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances