← 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)

M P Santhosh Kumar, ITO, Chennai vs. Greenpeace Environment Trust, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 509/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 509/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

clear inter alia from the fact that 15% exemption, capital additions of Rs.5,47,908/- and application of preceding years' accumulation under Section 11(2) of Rs.1,29,85,464/- have been allowed as per the Return. Further there is no adverse observations on the Charitable activities

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

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

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

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

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

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

Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Exemptions, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1187/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-10 Gujarat Technological University, The Dcit, Nr. Vishwakarma Govt. Engg. College, बनाम/ Circle-1, V/S. Near Visar Three Roads, Exemptions, Chandkheda Society Area S.O, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad-382424. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaalg1109L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 14.03.2025, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019–20, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

power to do so vests only with the specified authorities prescribed therein. The CIT(A) further referred to the statutory mandate under section 11(2) for furnishing Form No. 10 within prescribed time and concluded that in absence of condonation by the competent authority, the exemption could not be granted

Lala Gauri Mal Butail Trust, Palampur vs. Income Tax Officer (E), Solan

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1102/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1102/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Lala Gauri Mal Butail Trust Ito-Exemptions Ward बनाम/ Vs. C/O Bundla Tea State, Po Bundla Solan (Hp) Tehsil Palampur H.P. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatl-3208-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 11-09-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 11-01-2022. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11(2)Section 143(3)

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

Gifts Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

St. Thomas Church, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 296/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 296/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23) St Thomas Church V/S. Income Tax Officer 1, Church Road, बिाम (Exemptions) Ward 2(4), Goregaon (East), Mumbai Mumbai 400063 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai 400026. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4878R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Vasanti Patel-Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel-AdvFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL

ITO(E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, Mumbai

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

ITA 2927/MUM/2025[2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

Rs.3 crores being the amount applied for specific objects in F.Y. 2022-23 related to A.Y. 2023-24 out of accumulation made under section 11(2) of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld. AO considered the amendment to Finance Act, 2022 and held that the amount of Rs.3 ... section 11(3) of the Act for this impugned assessment year as being the sixth year of Accumulation for accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) considering the submission of the assesse allowed

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow vs. Uttar Pradesh Police and Armed Forces Sahayata Sansthan, Lucknow

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 516/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate

Rs.1,00,28,184/- as the excess amount carried forward to be set off in the succeeding assessment year. For ready reference section 11(2) of the Act is being reproduced hereunder: “(2) Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause ... brought forward) should be utilized. Such a condition is not prescribed in the Act and the charitable institution accumulating its surplus funds under section 11(2) of the Act is entirely free to spend the same in furtherance of its objects. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that this

Institute of Driving & Traffic Research, Uttrakhand vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption, Dehradun, Uttrakhand

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 75/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Institute Of Driving & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Traffic Research , Jhajra, Ward Exemption, Dehradun Chakrata Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun Uttarakhand Pan: Aaaai2799D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Anil Jain, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 Order

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13

1 Institute of Driving & Traffic Research IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘DEHRADUN/’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Ap Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.298/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessme298Nt Year: 2021-22) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Vs. Dy. Cit Control Board, (Exemption Circle) Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan:Aaaja1610Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 11/03/2025 Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

financial year 2020-21 and thereby leaving unutilized balance of accumulated income of Rs.3,86,62,540/- which attracts the provisions of section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act. According to the learned CIT (Exemptions), non-utilization of the accumulated income within the prescribed time limit is assessable ... financial year 2020-21 and therefore, in view of the 3rd proviso to section 10(23C) as well as in view of the section 11(2) r.w.s. 11(5) of the I.T. Act, the unutilized accumulated income within the prescribed limit of 5 years is liable to be taxed

Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi Sangh Bidada, Mandvi vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (1), Rajkot.

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

ITA 160/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 160/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi The Ito Exemption, Ward (1), Vs. Sangh Bidada, P.O. Bidada, Rajkot. New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Mandvi 370435 Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts0457L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

made by the Learned Assessing Officer (DCIT, CPC) in the income of the assessee on account of disallowance of accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the Act. The learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the act because the Form ... take made while feeding the data online. Thus, in view of above facts and circumstances there can be no disallowance of accumulation under section 11(2) of the act as there was a genuine error in filing Form 10 and full claim of accumulation under section 11(2

M/S.Believers Eastern Church, Thiruvalla vs. The CIT (Exemption), Kochi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 15/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

income and audited accounts are enclosed at pages 75 to 193 of the paperbook. d) Allegation: Improper use of accumulated funds under Section 11(2) The appellant trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying ... regarding large advances at year-end is not uncommon and has been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. Moreover, the trust also utilized Section 11(2) for accumulation. Disclosures made and later retracted were related to assessment issues, not registration. This issue is irrelevant to Section 12AA(3)/(4) proceedings. Copy

Ayana Charitable Trust, Thiruvalla vs. DCIT(Exemption), Trivandrum

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 14/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

income and audited accounts are enclosed at pages 75 to 193 of the paperbook. d) Allegation: Improper use of accumulated funds under Section 11(2) The appellant trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying ... regarding large advances at year-end is not uncommon and has been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. Moreover, the trust also utilized Section 11(2) for accumulation. Disclosures made and later retracted were related to assessment issues, not registration. This issue is irrelevant to Section 12AA(3)/(4) proceedings. Copy

Love India Ministries, Thiruvalla vs. The DCIT(Exemption), Kochi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 13/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

income and audited accounts are enclosed at pages 75 to 193 of the paperbook. d) Allegation: Improper use of accumulated funds under Section 11(2) The appellant trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying ... regarding large advances at year-end is not uncommon and has been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. Moreover, the trust also utilized Section 11(2) for accumulation. Disclosures made and later retracted were related to assessment issues, not registration. This issue is irrelevant to Section 12AA(3)/(4) proceedings. Copy

Last Hour Ministry, Thiruvalla vs. ACIT(Exemption), Kochi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 12/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

income and audited accounts are enclosed at pages 75 to 193 of the paperbook. d) Allegation: Improper use of accumulated funds under Section 11(2) The appellant trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying ... regarding large advances at year-end is not uncommon and has been accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. Moreover, the trust also utilized Section 11(2) for accumulation. Disclosures made and later retracted were related to assessment issues, not registration. This issue is irrelevant to Section 12AA(3)/(4) proceedings. Copy

Holy Spirit Educational Society Convent of Holy Spirit, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 965/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(i)Section 144B(1)(iii)Section 147Section 148

application of the income u/s. 11(1) of the Act. The assessee also filed form 10 for accumulating the income as per section 11(2) of the Act and there is no surplus income available and therefore the said benefit was not utilised by the assessee. Thereafter the assessee

St. Sebastians Church, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing

ITA 3398/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeest. Sebastians Church Vs Centralized Processing Center, Marouli Road, Marouli, Income-Tax Department, Chembur, Mumbai-400 074 Bengaluru / Income-Tax Officer Pan : Aaats0534R Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 026 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel – Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 13(10)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

St Francis Xaviers Forane Church, Kannamali vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Ernakulam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 438/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 St. Francis Xaviers Forance Church, .......... Appellant Kandakadavu, Andikkadavu (Po), Kannamali, Kochi. [Pan: Aadts 3622 B] Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Ernakulam, Kochi .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena La, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM Assessment Year: 2014-15 St. Francis