← 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)

Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Jivdaya Khatu, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Income Tax Officer, Exem Jivdaya Khatu Ward-2(3), Jivdaya Lane Agra Road, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400086 (Pan: Aabts9826R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Advocate and Ravi Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Association [2001] 247 ITR 201 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with requirement on filing of Form No.10 in reference to section 11(2) held that even though there is no valid limitation prescribed under the Rules for filing of Form No.10, yet such an intimation ... fatal to exemption claimed u/s.11(2). Relevant extract from the said decision as contained in para-8 are reproduced below: “8. Section 11(2) of the Act provides that eighty five percent of the income which is not utilized by the Trust for charitable or religious purposes would

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

from property held in trust. 4.1.2. A sum of Rs.3,26,00,000/- being amount accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2) read with section 11(5) of the Act. It is submitted that the disallowances referred to above are unjustified

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

from property held in trust. 4.1.2. A sum of Rs.3,26,00,000/- being amount accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2) read with section 11(5) of the Act. It is submitted that the disallowances referred to above are unjustified

Sarangpur Talias Pole Punch Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 929/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

basis that since the assessee trust had not utilized the accumulated income within the statutorily prescribed period of five years, the exemption under section 11(2) of the Act could not be granted, even though the amount was in fact admittedly spent in the sixth year ... submissions. In the present case, the assessee had accumulated fund of Rs.4,60,000/- in the F.Y. 2016-17. As per provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act, a trust is required to apply 85 % of income during any previous year to charitable or religious purposes. However

Rajasthan Ophthalmological Society, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

invested in fixed deposit receipts on 07.04.2018 and 09.04.2018 with the same bank. 4.1 The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for accumulation under section 11(2), observing that the investment in prescribed modes under section 11(5) was not made during the relevant financial year. He therefore added ... total income of the appellant. The CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the addition holding that the provisions of section 11(2) read with section 11(5) were not complied with in the year under appeal. 5. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

hereby allowed. 13 Ground Nos.4 & 5 30. The Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities have rejected the claim of the assessee trust for accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act on account of denial of claim under section 11 of the Act. Since the assessee is found to be entitled ... under ground No.2 in the preceding paras, this ground has become consequential. The AO is directed to process the claim of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act accordingly these ground Nos.4 & 5 being consequently in nature. So ground no. 4 & 5 are decided in favour of the assessee

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 593/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

income. The due date of filing Form 10 was 07.11.2017 for AY 2017-18. The assessee has therefore not complied the provisions of section 11(2) read with Rule 17(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (the “Rules”) and also the provisos of section ... submitted that there are several judicial precedents favorable to the assessee wherein the claim of exemption under section 11(2) has been allowed even when Form 10 was filed after expiry of limitation period but before intimation u/s 143(1) and/ or before the completion of the assessment proceedings

Sri Sarada Peetham Charitable Trust, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 792/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.792/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2023-24) Sri Sarada Peetham Charitable Income Tax Officer Exemption, Vs. Ward-1(4), Hyderabad. Trust, Visakhapatnam. Pan:Aagts3745N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 10/09/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

Form No.10BB as well as Form No.10 on the same date i.e., 07.09.2023. The assessee had in fact filed Form No.10 under section 11(2) of the Act. While processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act, CPC noticed a mismatch between Form No.10BB and Form No.10

Medicos Welfare Trust, Madurai vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1068/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1068/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: - Medicos Welfare Trust, The Commissioner Of Income Plot No. 127, E B Colony Vs. Tax (Exemption), Iyer Bunglow, Chennai. Ma Reserve Lines S.O, Alathur, Madurai – 625 014. [Pan: Aahtm-1007-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate & Shri. G. Akash, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक

Imperial College India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(3), Mumbai

ITA 4452/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Virabhadra MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Sambhav Shah
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

framed on the Assessee vide Assessment Order, dated 10/12/2018. The Assessing Officer disallowed the income amounting to INR.62,28,989/- accumulated under Section 11(2) of the Act holding that the purpose stated for accumulation [i.e. “towards the object of the trust

Goenka & Associates Educational Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemption - Circle 1, Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4444/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Blegoenka & Associates Educational Dcit Exemption Circle 1 Trust, Mumbai. Vs. Yashodham High School Bldg., General A K Vaidya Marg, Goregaon, Mumbai 400 063. Pan Aaatg1248E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Shri Amod Prabhudesai & Naman JainFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Ms

Family Physicians Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Bangalore

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

ITA 946/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Family Physicians Association, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), #202-3 Mahesh Clinic, Ward, R T Street, B V K Iyengar Road Cross, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 053, Karnataka. Pan :Aaatf 1083 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nagesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 17.09.2016 declaring income of Rs.13,56,238/- and claimed exemption under sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act of Rs.1,10,000/-. Assessee had shown taxable income of Rs.2,44,542/- and claimed refund of Rs.9 ... While processing return on 27.04.2017, claim made under sections 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act was denied to the assessee. Accordingly, taxable income was determined at Rs.11,57,070/- and raised demand of Page 2 of 5 Rs.1,95,910/-. Against the above intimation assessee filed rectification request

Shivgad Adyatma Charitable Trust, Kolhapur vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.899/PUN/2025

Naba Utkal Trust, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/CTK/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Am आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.268/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Naba Utkal Trust, Vs Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Plot No.841, Keshab Complex, Cuttack Road, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar-751010 Pan No. : Aabtn 0126 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order, Dated 28.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), Panaji, For The Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 60 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Supported With An Affidavit Stating Therein That The Delay Of 60 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Due To Lack Of Knowledge About The Order Passed By The Ld.Pcit. Accordingly, The Assessee Prayed That The Delay Of 60 Days May Kindly Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Kindly Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Sr. Dr Did Not Raise Any Objection To This Contention Of The Assessee For Condonation Of Delay. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) BEFORE SHRI

Meshri Mahajan Vanda, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO (Exemp), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 1261/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(iii)Section 115B

115BBI of the Act. This was based on the reasoning that the said amount was accumulated in Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 under Section 11(2), and since it was not utilised by 31.03.2022, it was deemed to be income of FY 2022-23 (relevant to AY 2023-24). Upon ... Despite these arguments, the CIT(A) upheld the adjustment made by the CPC. In the appellate order, Ld. CIT(A) held that under Section 11(2) read with Section 11(3), the amount accumulated in FY 2016-17 was required to be utilised by 31.03.2022. Since the assessee admitted that

Archdiocese of Bombay, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemption, Circle 1, Mumbai

ITA 3375/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Archdiocese Of Bombay Dcit(E), Circle-1 Archbishops House, 21 Cumball Hill Telephone Nathalal Parekh Marg Vs. Exchange, Peddar Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Road, Mumbai-400 026. Pan : Aaata0008J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Surendra MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri M.A. Gohel
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

without prejudice to any others: I. DENIAL OF DEUCTION FOR UTILISATION UNDER SECTION 11(3) OF THE ACT OF THE SURPLUS ACCUMULATED UNDER SECTION 11(2) OF THE ACT IN EARLIER YEARS - RS. 81,35,976/- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2 Archdiocese ... confirming the denial of deduction under Section 11(3) of the Act claimed by the Appellant for utilization of surplus accumulated under Section 11 (2) of the Act in earlier years by the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer

Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem.Ward 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3396/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

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: 8 Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul AY 2023-24 “11

St. Anthonys Church, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3011/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 St. Anthony’S Church Ito Exem, Ward 2(3), Mumbai St. Anthony’S Church, Marve Road, Malwani, Vs. Malad, Mumbai – 400094. (Pan: Aacts6737L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For:

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 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 ... provisions of law, including the amendments brought in by Finance 8 St. Anthony’s Church AY 2023-24 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

Gangarani Balika Vidhyalya, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4007/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgangarani Balika Vidhyalya, Vs. Ito, Rampur, Baiju, Chibramau, Ghaziabad Kannauj, Up Pan: Aatg8579N Assessee By : Shri Vibhu Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Vibhu Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gangarani Balika Vidhyalya, Vs. ITO

Breach Candy Medical Research Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1395/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Breach Candy Medical Ito(Exemption)-1(1) Research Centre Room No. 508, 5Th 60-A, Bhulabhai Desai Road Vs. Floor, Pirmal Mumbai-400 026. Chamber, Parel Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Aaatb0045Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Paras Savla
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 35(1)(ii)

Trust registered after getting approval under section 12A of the I.T.Act and 2 Breach Candy Medical Research Centre applied the provisions of section 11(2) and 11(3) of the I.T. Act. It was submitted that the appellant institution is an approved research association for the purposes of section