← All Phrases

“Section 11(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 11(2) is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11), cited in 541 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(2)

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Judgments citing Section 11(2)

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(E)-2(1), Mumbai, Cumbala Hill vs. The Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3158/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailita Nos. 3158 & 3159/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Biswanath DasFor Respondent: Nitesh Joshi
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

Considering the facts of the case and also the rulings cited above, alternate addition made by the assessee by denying the benefit of section 11(2) is not in accordance with the act and hence addition made by the assessing officer is deleted.” 18. Heard both the sides and perused

Hbs Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3949/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailhbs Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of 505 Ceejay House, Dr. Income Tax- 7(1)(2) Annie Besant Road, Worli Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacc1641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mandar Vaidya Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Appellant'S Appeal As 'Delayed Solely Because The Appeal, In The First Instance, Was Filed Manually & Not Electronically. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Misdirected Himself In Not Appreciating That Failure To File The Appeal Electronically, In The First Instance Is, At Best, A Procedural Defect & The Difference Between 'Manual' & 'Electronic' Is, Merely Of Form. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not, In The Given Circumstances, Justified In Declining To Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Fell In Error In Not Appreciating That Plurality Of Objects Was Not Precluded In The Purposes Contemplated U/S.11(2) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 11(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

P a g e | 1 HBS Realtors Pvt.Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT-7(1)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

which is filed at page 50 and 95 of PB. Rental income and miscellaneous income were earned from building held by the assessee. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that the income of the institution falls short of 85% of the gross/total receipts or the said shortfall ... income during the previous year and also brings such further accumulated income out of the tax net if the conditions laid down in section 11(2) are fulfilled. The contention that the investment as contemplated by section 19 I.T.A. Nos.1228,1229 & 1230/Kol/2023 Assessment Years

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1229/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

which is filed at page 50 and 95 of PB. Rental income and miscellaneous income were earned from building held by the assessee. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that the income of the institution falls short of 85% of the gross/total receipts or the said shortfall ... income during the previous year and also brings such further accumulated income out of the tax net if the conditions laid down in section 11(2) are fulfilled. The contention that the investment as contemplated by section 19 I.T.A. Nos.1228,1229 & 1230/Kol/2023 Assessment Years

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

which is filed at page 50 and 95 of PB. Rental income and miscellaneous income were earned from building held by the assessee. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that the income of the institution falls short of 85% of the gross/total receipts or the said shortfall ... income during the previous year and also brings such further accumulated income out of the tax net if the conditions laid down in section 11(2) are fulfilled. The contention that the investment as contemplated by section 19 I.T.A. Nos.1228,1229 & 1230/Kol/2023 Assessment Years

Shri Namdev Samaj Tank Shastriya Vikas Samiti and Shodh Sansthan, New Housing Board Kishangarh vs. ITO Exemption, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 776/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80G

1 SHRI NAMDEV SAMAJ TANK SHASTRIYA VIKAS SAMITI AND SHODH SANSTHANVS ITO (EXEMPTION), AJMER आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Software Technology Park of India, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2516/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

immediately succeeding AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed to the assessee the benefit of section 11(1)(a) and section 11(2) 9 & against which the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal of the Revenue has since been decided against the Revenue ... assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 11 to 13 which would include accumulation as per section 11(1)(a) and section 11(2) of the Act. The Tribunal in its order in ITA No. 4172/Del/2017 dated 07.12.2022 gave the following findings in para 11 thereof which is reproduced

M/S Software Technology Parks of India., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2415/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

immediately succeeding AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed to the assessee the benefit of section 11(1)(a) and section 11(2) 9 & against which the Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal of the Revenue has since been decided against the Revenue ... assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 11 to 13 which would include accumulation as per section 11(1)(a) and section 11(2) of the Act. The Tribunal in its order in ITA No. 4172/Del/2017 dated 07.12.2022 gave the following findings in para 11 thereof which is reproduced

Madhuchampaklal Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 575/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 575/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Madhuchampaklal Income Tax Officer, Charitable Trust, Vs. Ward 1(Exemptions) Harikunk, Ahmedabad. Opposite C.N Vidyalaya, Ambawadi-380006. Pan: Aaatm3257B

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)

form 10 was filed before the completion of the assessment and therefore, the assesee cannot be denied for the benefit provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival ... Tribunal was justified in holding that the time limit prescribed for filing Form No.10 under rule 17 of the Rules read with section 11(2) of the Act is directory. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee had filed Form No.10 as required under rule

Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind, Mumbai City vs. D.C.I.T. (Exemption)-II(1) Mum, Mumbai City

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2382/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

from corpus funds or borrowed funds. Therefore, the Appellant had purchased the assets under consideration either from the funds accumulated in terms of Section 11(2) or from the 15% deemed application of income and in both the said cases it can be said that the Appellant had claimed cost

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3372/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 The Institute Of Company Vs. Dcit, Secretaries Of India, Circle Exemp Icsi House 2(1) 22 Institutional Area, Delhi Lodi Road, H.O Aliganj, Delhi 110003 Pan Aaatt1103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

demand of Rs. 63,55,89,270/- has been raised by CPC.” 4. Aggrieved by the denial of benefit of exemption claimed under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,33,672/- in rectification order under section 154/143(1) dated ... figures in computation of income in return of income and in Form 10 in respect of total amount of accumulated funds under section 11(2) for the AY 2021-22. The assessee submitted reply which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at page 11-12 of the appeal order

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

However, the Assessing Officer presumed that the cost of fixed assets must have funded out of the amount set apart under Section 11(2) of the Act or under the general provisions where 15% of income is deemed as application. The Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed depreciation of INR 2

Loyola High School, Kolkata vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

pleaded in Grounds No. 1 to 3 revolve around a single issue, namely whether assessee is entitled to accumulate the surplus fund under section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act or not. 10. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income ... accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that though the assessee has filed Form No. 10 claiming benefit of accumulation under section 11(2) on 17.10.2016 i.e. before the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1), but the return was not filed 6 Loyola High

The Bombay Catholic Sabha, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3793/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Bombay Catholic बिधम/ Ito (Exem)-2(4) Sabha Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. St. Michael’S Church Baug, Parel, Mumbai- Compound, Mahhim (W), 400012. Mumbai-400016. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt3348L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(2)

chart is relevant and reproduced as under: - In the light of discussion, we note that the issue before us is whether section 11(2) of the Act r.w. Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”) makes it necessary for the assessee to make specific mention ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accumulation of income by the assessed under Section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for all objects for which the trust was created and not for specific purpose

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

which is filed at page 50 and 95 of PB. Rental income and miscellaneous income were earned from building held by the assessee. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that the income of the institution falls short of 85% of the gross/total receipts or the said shortfall ... income during the previous year and also brings such further accumulated income out of the tax net if the conditions laid down in section 11(2) are fulfilled. The contention that the investment as contemplated by section 11(2)(b) must be investment of all accumulated income in the Government

Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Panipat vs. ITO(E), Ambala

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

ITA 7873/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Vs. Ambala, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Bc Haryana - 122001 Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (Pan: Aaats4962K) Haryana – 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in facts and in law by not accepting Form 10 for accumulation of income under section 11(2) filed during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in facts and in law holding that delay

Sanganeria Foundations for Health & Education, New Delhi vs. CIT, Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 703/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Sanganeria Foundations For Vs. Cit, Exemption Health & Education, New Delhi 304, Avg Bhawan, M-3, Ward Exemption 2(1), Connaught Circus, Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 001 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Aadts8978E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

donation to two other trusts, which shall not be treated as application of income as per explanation to section 11(2), r.w.s. 11(3) of the Act. During the year under consideration, as per the details of amount accumulated/set apart within meaning of section 11(2) declared in Schedule ... totaling to Rs. 65,00,001/- accumulated / set apart within the meaning of section 11(2) during F.Y(s). 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 respectively has been utilized / applied as donation to two other trusts. Amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was given to Shree Raghunath Balika Vidyalaya

Acil Navasar Jan Rural Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3743/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Priti Kamble (Accountant)For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

Since, the assessee has been deprived of benefit benefit of application of fund for charitable purpose of fund for charitable purpose under section 11(2) of the Act only for under section 11(2) of the Act only for the reason of delay in submitting the Form 10 of Income

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2014-15 Le, prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 2. Social Security Scheme of GICEA v. CIT (Exemptions) - [2023] 147 taxmann.com 283 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case ... findings of the case would not be applicable since the captioned case was of AY 2007-08 i.e. prior to the amendment in Section 11(2) by Finance Act, 2015. 8. DCIT (Exemptions) v Audyogik Shikshan Mandal [2022] 139 taxmann.com 28 (Pune-Trib.) The issue in the captioned case