← 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)

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Delhi vs. ITO, Exemp. Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1798/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2023-24 बनाम Foundation For Universal Income Tax Officer Responsibility Of His Holiness The Vs. (Exemption), Dalai Lama, Ward 1(1), Core-4A, Ugf, India, New Delhi. Habitat Centre, Upper Ground Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaatf0174E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)

accumulated earlier. 16. We find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on this issue. The provisions of section 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act as stood at the relevant time read as under: “11(1). (2) Where eighty-five per cent ... apply the aforesaid surplus for charitable purposes in AY 2008-09 and had applied for accumulation of such surplus in terms of section 11(2) of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11(2), accumulation is allowed for a period of 5 years. It is not in dispute

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Dr D Y Patil Unitech Society, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1391/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit (Exemption) Dr D Y Patil Unitech Society Circle, Pune Flat No.101, Shree Motisagar Vs. Apartment, G G Thakkar Road, S No.173A, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aabtd1482A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held that exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act i.e. 15% is an absolute exemption and the application of section 11(2) of the Act does not extend to nullify the absolute exemption. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ... Delhi) according to which the exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act i.e. 15% is an absolute exemption and the application of section 11(2) of the Act does not extend to nullify the absolute exemption. Further, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the issue has also

Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5038/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. Kala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)

utilize 85% of its receipts for charitable activities and therefore accumulated the funds falling short by 85% as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act to be utilized in future years. As per the provisions of section 11(2)(a) of the Act, assessee was required ... have also given our thoughtful consideration to the provisions of law, including the amendments brought in by Finance Act, 2022. Provisions of Section 11(2) and Section 11(3) as stood at the relevant time read as under: “11(1)……… (2) where eighty-five per cent of the income referred

Dayspring Enterprises of India, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

ITA 1261/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

accumulation of income computed by the Ld. PCIT(E) in the revision proceedings and it is only a deemed income as per Section 11(2) of the Act, for the A.Y. 2016-17 and because of the incorrect amount, the income to be applied for A.Y. 2016-17 has been

Surabhi Shodh Sansthan, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3042/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year2017-18 Surabhi Shodh Sansthan Vs. Dcit, Circle Exemp-2(1), 1428 Maliwara , Chandni Civic Centre, Minto Road, Chowk Delhi 110006 New Delhi Pan No.Aapts1404B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR

The Salesian Sisters, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 576/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 264

assess true income of the assessee by treating the receipts amounting to ₹ 3,41,09,928/- as accumulated funds as per section 11(2) not includable as income of the assessee in the previous year relevant to the A.Υ.: 2018-2019. 4. That the appellant craves leave

Care Today Fund, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 1(3), Civic Centre New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5734/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Care Today Fund, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-26, First Floor, Exemption 1(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100 01 Pan :Aaatc3762B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 80G(5)(vi)

being allowed to the assessee. 3. On perusal of Schedule I of ITR giving details of amount accumulated/set apart within the meaning of section 11(2), it is noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed to have applied amount of Rs.1,89,64,378/- for charitable purpose

Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act by disallowing the deduction of Rs.3,56,00,000/- claimed under Section 11(2) and further made an addition of Rs.1,97,60,600 under Section 11(3) on the ground that the amount accumulated during ... assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO issued a show cause notice stating that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.3,56,00,000 under Section 11(2) for accumulation of income to be utilized within the next five years. However, Forms No. 10 and 10B were filed on 03.04.2018, i.e., after

Evehans Academy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 362/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Thejaswi GV, JCIT (DR)
Section 11(2)

assessee in the year under consideration claimed that it has accumulated refund of ₹ 80 lakhs under the provisions of section 11(2) Page 2 of 4 of the act which was utilised year under consideration. However the AO found that it is compulsory for the assessee to furnish form ... accumulating the fund under the provisions of section 11(2) of the act but the assessee has not been done so. As such it was the allegation of the AO that the assessee has not filed form 10 in the assessment year 2013- 14 for setting a part

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 950/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

duly submitted Form-10 subsequently, and the same was available on record before the completion of assessment, thereby complying with the requirement of Section 11(2) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) as well as Ld DCIT (Exemption) omitted to take into account the Circular no. 7/2018 dated ... well as Ld DCIT(Exemption) erred in considering that, when Rs. 7,15,36,230/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. 5. The Ld. DCIT has erred in law as well

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 949/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

duly submitted Form-10 subsequently, and the same was available on record before the completion of assessment, thereby complying with the requirement of Section 11(2) of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) as well as Ld DCIT (Exemption) omitted to take into account the Circular no. 7/2018 dated ... well as Ld DCIT(Exemption) erred in considering that, when Rs. 7,15,36,230/- has been actually set apart under section 11(2) and reported in form 10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. 5. The Ld. DCIT has erred in law as well

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

where the assessee observed that a certain error had crept in the original return of income, wherein the quantum of deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act required correction and accordingly, the assessee filed revised return of income with the higher claim of deduction under section 11(2 ... return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original retum of income (which was filed within the due prescribed date), Form 10 was duly furnished

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

where the assessee observed that a certain error had crept in the original return of income, wherein the quantum of deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act required correction and accordingly, the assessee filed revised return of income with the higher claim of deduction under section 11(2 ... return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original retum of income (which was filed within the due prescribed date), Form 10 was duly furnished

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Shiv Narain Sidheswar Mandir Bagh Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 633/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dcit (Exemptions), Shri Shiv Narain Sidheswar Mandir Circle – 2, Chandigarh. Vs Bagh Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurudwara Road, Gurgaon. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacts6273M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Arjun Chaturvedi, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11(2)

2. In the solitary ground of appeal Revenue has pleaded that assessee has not submitted Form No. 10 as contemplated in A.Y.2018-19 2 Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore, it is not entitled for exemption u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act. 3. With ... Trust (2019) 102 taxmann.com 122, CIT (Appeals) A.Y.2018-19 3 had deleted the disallowance and held that assessee will be entitled for benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act. 5. The ld. CIT DR took us through paragraph No. 5.1 to 5.4 of the assessment order. She contended that

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 263

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi has erred both on facts and law in not allowing the benefit of accumulations as per provisions of Section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the notice of accumulation given by the appellant was not as per provisions ... That the Ld. First Appellate Authority has erred both on facts and law in not allowing the statutory reduction of 15% allowable under section 11(2) of the Income tax Act, thus making whole of the receipts amounting to Rs.4,86,73,08,657 liable to be treated as income

National Law Institute University, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 423/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

apart in terms of section 11(1)(a) of the Act and the amount to be accumulated in terms of section 11(2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court held that the amounts accumulated/set apart in terms of section 11(2) of the Act would be reduced from

M/S. Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1732/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1732/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस एस िव"ने

National Payments Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth a/w
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

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

B Y L Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, subject to verification, the appeal of the

ITA 1568/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Dani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui,(Sr. DR)
Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Report in Form No. 10B & Returns of Income Original and Revised and Form No 10 for A.Y.2018-19 are concerned, Form 10 (Notice under Section 11(2)) was e-filed on 31 October 2018 at 23:49 hours and Form 10B (Audit Report) was uploaded on 31 October

Acharya Shree Vidhyasagar Dayoday Pashu Sewa Kendra Tendukheda Damoh, Tendukheda Damoh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 32/JAB/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Jain, Sh. Nishant Jain & Dr. H.SFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

been cancelled by the ld. CIT (Exemption), the assessee was being assessed as an AOP. Therefore, the surplus which was accumulated under section 11(2) was added back to the income of the assessee because the assessee was not eligible to claim the same in the absence of a valid