← All Phrases

“Section 11(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(2)636 judgments

SAHYADRI ADIVASI BAHUVIDH SEVA SANGH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , THANE

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

ITA 2466/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Sahyadri Adivasi Bahuvidh Income Tax Officer, Seva Sangh Exemption, Savarkar Road, Opp. S.T Mumbai Johns High School. Vs. Thane (West), Mumbai - 400601 (Pan: Aadts9375D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Suhas P. Bora, Ca Revenue : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-2, Surat, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072463266(1), Dated 23.01.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Thane, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 25.12.2018, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44C

{ "clean_text": "ITA No.- 7212/Del/2017\nThe Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd.\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI

SWARNIMTOUCH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2466/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80

that filing of Form No. 10 is a procedural requirement and delay in filing such form cannot lead to denial of exemption under section 11(2) of the Act. The Tribunal further held that such claim could not be disallowed through intimation issued under section 143(1) merely on account

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

this reply. In lieu of above said registration assessee trust has rightly claimed the deduction of Rs.17,41,99/- under section 11(2) and hence income of trust remains as NIL. The copy of computation of income of assessee is also enclosed as page number 29 of this reply. Henceforth ... Rs.5,40,082/- claimed by the assessee has been reduced to Rs.2,51,182/-, Similarly deduction of Rs.21,75,000/-claimed under section 11(2) has also not allowed, resulting in increased total income of Rs.26,95,695/- as against the returned income of Rs.2,31,730/-. 3. Aggrieved against

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

deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit (FDRs) in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The assessee, inter- alia, contended that the investment made in Bank FDRs would be capital expenditure ... deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (‘AO' for short) found that the assessee had not given intimation in Form

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

deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit (FDRs) in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The assessee, inter- alia, contended that the investment made in Bank FDRs would be capital expenditure ... deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (‘AO' for short) found that the assessee had not given intimation in Form

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

deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit (FDRs) in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The assessee, inter- alia, contended that the investment made in Bank FDRs would be capital expenditure ... deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (‘AO' for short) found that the assessee had not given intimation in Form

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

deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit (FDRs) in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The assessee, inter- alia, contended that the investment made in Bank FDRs would be capital expenditure ... deficit, the assessee claimed that balance amount of Rs.1,25,82,774/- was deposited in the bank fixed deposit in pursuance of Section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (‘AO' for short) found that the assessee had not given intimation in Form

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts ... Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts ... Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts ... Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n10. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1508/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Ema Bindu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

SHREE MATHUR VAISHYA JAN HIT PARISHAD,KOLKATA vs. WARD 1(3),EXEMPT,, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1138/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

failed to give effect and therefore, the maximum disallowance is to be restricted to ₹ 5,885/- being the amount calculated under section 11(2) for accumulation. It is stated that the appeal may be allowed in full and the impugned order may be set aside. 6. We have considered

PUNJAB MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.593/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Punjab Municipal Infrastructure Dcit Exemption Circle 1, 5Th Floor Development Company बनाम/ Plot No. 3, 5Th Floor C. R. Building, Vs. Punjab Municipal Bhawan, Sector – 17E Chandigarh - 160022 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcp-8185-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Navdeep Monga (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25-02-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 25-02-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26-11-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Monga (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND

DINABANDHU FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & SOCIO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,BHUBANESWAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 450/CTK/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.450/Ctk/2025 रोक आवेदन सं/Sa No.6/Ctk/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.450/Ctk/2025) (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Dinabandhu Foundation For Educational Research & Socio Commissioner/Income Tax Economic Development, Officer/Nfac, Delhi A/127, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751007 Pan No. :Aaatd 7338 L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dilip Kumar Mohanty, Advocate & Shri Pradyumna Kumar Sahu, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : The Assessee Has Filed Stay Application Along With Appeal In Ita No.450/Ctk/2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 Against The Order Dated 21.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Thereby Disallowing The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee Trust U/S.11(2) Of The Act On The Ground That The Purpose Mentioned In Form No.10 Was Too Vague & Lacked The Required Specificity. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Had During The Impugned Assessment Year Filed Its Form No.10 Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Kumar Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)

Form No. 10 regarding specific purpose for which funds were being accumulated by assessee-trust, would not be fatal to exemption claimed under section 11(2) ■■■ [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust * Akil Kureshi ... Form No. 10 regarding specific purpose for which funds were being accumulated by assessee-trust, would not be fatal to exemption claimed under section 11(2) - 4 SA No.06/CTK/2025 Held, yes - Whether, therefore, where pursuant to enquiry raised by Assessing Officer, assessee passed a formal resolution specifying that funds were

AMEENAMMA CHARITBLE TRUST,ANANTAPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee Trust is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1841/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1841/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Ameenamma Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Trust, (Exemption) Ward – Anantapur. Tirupati. Pan: Aaeta7403P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ka Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, Dated 03/10/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 14/12/2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri K Vamsi Krishna, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

observed that as per the provisions of section 13(9) of the Act, the benefit of accumulation in accordance with the provisions of section 11(2) shall not be allowed when any one of the prescribed form or the return of income are filed after the due date specified under

RAMJIDAS BUDHRAJA CHARITABLE TRUST (SGM),CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

facts of the case, in not permitting the claim of deduction for accumulation of income of rupees 39,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. Necessary compliance as per rules was made by the assessee, and form number 10 was submitted before the assessing officer within ... allowed. D. The assessee is raising an additional ground of appeal to say that the Assessing Officer should have allowed the benefit of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act for accumulation of income. Since the assessee had submitted Form No. 10 through speed post

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/HYD/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the entire addition of Rs.13,76,58,674/-, holding that there was no accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act available for taxation under section 11(3) of the Act in the year under consideration. 4. Aggrieved by the order ... upto the A.Y.1989-90 only and no exemption was granted for the A.Ys. 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-95 and hence provisions of section 11(2) are not applicable in respect of the income accumulated in these years is erroneous on the facts of the case. Page

NIKHIL BANGA KALYAN SAMITY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), EXEMPT, , KOLKATA

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

ITA 2807/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

ought to have considered that delay in filing of Form 10B cannot be a ground for denying the legitimate exemption under section 11(2) of the Act, when all the conditions precedent for allowing such exemption have been fulfilled by the appellant. ITA No.: 2807/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Nikhil

Showing 1–20 of 636 · Page 1 of 32

...