← All Phrases

“Section 11(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(1)848 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(1) is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(1)

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

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.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
77 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · High Court
370
citing judgments

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of actual exempt income, as Section 14A relates to the earning of actual income, not notional or anticipated income, thereby declining to apply the CBDT Circular dated 11th May 2014 in such cases.

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.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

Judgments citing Section 11(1)

Digamber Jain Mandir Shri Neminath Ji Sanwala Ji Amer, Jaipur vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 337/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur,CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

materials available on record. 4.5 Going to the merits of the case, it is seen that the assessing officer had withdrawn benefit of Section 11(1)(a) since the assessee had not submitted a copy of registration u/s 12 A of the I.T. Act 1961. During appellate proceedings also

Digamber Jain Mandir Shri Neminath Ji Sanwalaji Amer, Jaipur vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 336/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur,CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

materials available on record. 4.5 Going to the merits of the case, it is seen that the assessing officer had withdrawn benefit of Section 11(1)(a) since the assessee had not submitted a copy of registration u/s 12 A of the I.T. Act 1961. During appellate proceedings also

Digamber Jain Mandir Shri Neminath Ji Sanwalaji Amer, Jaipur vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 335/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur,CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

materials available on record. 4.5 Going to the merits of the case, it is seen that the assessing officer had withdrawn benefit of Section 11(1)(a) since the assessee had not submitted a copy of registration u/s 12 A of the I.T. Act 1961. During appellate proceedings also

Digamber Jain Mandir Shri Neminath Ji Sanwalaji Amer, Jaipur vs. ITO (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 334/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Mathur,CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

materials available on record. 4.5 Going to the merits of the case, it is seen that the assessing officer had withdrawn benefit of Section 11(1)(a) since the assessee had not submitted a copy of registration u/s 12 A of the I.T. Act 1961. During appellate proceedings also

Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

Other Manual Workers Board [A] Assessing Officer had accepted assessee’s claim of accumulation u/sec.11(1) of the Act and benefit of section 11(1) is only possible, if assessee is duly registered u/sec.12A of the Act. 4.5 It is also observed that Department has issued registration u/s.12AA

Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2) Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust, Vs Ito, 8, Eastern Avenue, Ward 2(2) Exemption, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaats7083F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vandana Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10374/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 28.12.2019 Passed U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, Exemption, Ward 2(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Created By A Trust Deed Dated 6Th March, 2. 1978 & Is Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee’S Case Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & The Ao Examined The Cash Deposits Of Rs.34,53,730/- During The Demonetization Period & Further Observed That During The Relevant Assessment Year No Return Has Been Filed By The Assessee Either U/S 139 Of The Act Or In Response To Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 144 Of The Act Making An Addition Of Rs.1,22,87,399/- U/S 69A Of The Act On Account Of Following Show Cause Notice:-

For Appellant: Ms Vandana Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6.1 The appellant assessee has to be held to be eligible and entitled to exemptions under Section 11(1) and 112) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of audit report along with return of income which was at the best

ACIT(E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Gangotri Human Resources & Development Society, Allahabad

ITA 221/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.221/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption, Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Pandey [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246(1)Section 250Section 253(2)

against the present year surplus and accordingly determined the total income after allowing 15% accumulation in terms of section 11(1)(1) of the Act by an order dt. 12/08/2016 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the aforestated denial the assessee preferred an appeal before 3.3 first ... section 11 of the Act and that such adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 7. This our view finds supports in catena of judicial precedents including ‘CIT Vs Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation

Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri Educational and Charitable Trust, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.585/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri The Ito (Exemptions), Educational & Charitable Trust, Ward-2, 069, Thirupaninatham, Chennai. Ennanagaram & Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore-604 001. [Pan: Aabtk 6500 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)

charitable purpose. 5. Therefore, the AO held that the assessee's, therefore, does not satisfy either the first or the second requirement of section 11(1)(a) of the Act. And since, the assessee has shown NIL receipts from main Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri Educational & Charitable Trust :: 4 :: object, as observed

Gopala Gowda Shanthaveri Memorial Hospital Trust, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), 1, Mysore

The appeal is allowed

ITA 921/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 119Section 12A(1)(b)Section 250

dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6.1 The appellant assessee has to be held to be eligible and entitled to exemptions under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of audit report along with return of income which

Secondary School Education Society Hegdekatta, Sirsi vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 897/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavsecondary School Education The Income Tax Officer Society Hegdekatta (Exemption), Ward -1 1. Shri Gajanan Sec. School Albuquerque House Vs. Hegdekatta Sirsi Attavar Road, Attavar Sirsi 581403 Karnataka Mangalore 575001 Pan – Aanas3479D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcti-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising From Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S250/2003-24/1063671684(1) Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad (Cit(A)) Dated 30.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered With Income Tax Department Under Section 12Aa & Also Got 80G Of The Act. The Main Object Of The Assessee Is To Provide Education To Aspirants From Primary Level To Secondary Level. For The Impugned Year, Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 07.01.2022, Declaring Gross Total

For Appellant: Shri Prabhath P. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCTI-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6.1 The appellant assessee has to be held to be eligible and entitled to exemptions under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of audit report along with return of income which

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Visakhapatnam vs. Milk Producers Employees Educational Health Medical Welfare Trust, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.229/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Milk Producers & Central Circle-2 Employees Educational Visakhapatnam Health & Medical Welfare Trust, D.No.32-11-1 Krishi Building Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatm6689B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

while claiming expenditure, the assessee has made a provision of Rs.6,00,26,300/- in order to fulfil the 85% criteria, specified in section 11(1) of the Act. Further the assessee has made payment of Rs.1,89,36,698/- out of the total Rs.6 ... provision for expenses. The Ld AR’s argument that even if the provision is excluded the trust has fulfilled 85% complying with section 11(1) of the Act was also not disputed by the Ld. AO. We have examined the above fact and are of the view that the trust

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Chadha Education Society, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 91/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Doi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 133(6)

Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon by Shri. Sanmathi, makes it clear that the voluntary donation made with a specific direction shall form a part ... corpus. The person who makes a contribution can make such contribution either with a specific direction or without any direction. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act refers to only such contribution which are made for a specific purpose. For example, the donor may desire that his donation be used

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 755/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

before your goodself in due course due to some circumstances as the Ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the Application of Income under section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the Assessment proceeding for the Assessment year 2022-23 under section 143(3) of the Income

Srividya Religious and Charitable Foundation Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 754/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2024

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80G

before your goodself in due course due to some circumstances as the Ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the Application of Income under section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the Assessment proceeding for the Assessment year 2022-23 under section 143(3) of the Income

Janaki Thangam Educationnel Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1630/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act by taxing the amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/- in violation of section 11(1) of the Act and that to at maximum marginal rate u/s.164(2) of the Act. 7. For this, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that

Janaki Thangam Educationnel Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-3, Chenai, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1617/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147

disallowing the claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act by taxing the amount of Rs.2,20,00,000/- in violation of section 11(1) of the Act and that to at maximum marginal rate u/s.164(2) of the Act. 7. For this, the ld.AR for the assessee stated that

Jan Swasthya Sahyog, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle, Exempt 1(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2336/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the amended provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Act and confirmed the addition made by the AO (CPC).

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

from other sources. (ii) That the above said addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact that the corpus donation received are exempt under Section 11 (1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. 4.(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A). NFAC has erred both ... that such voluntary contributions are invested or deposited as per the modes specified under section 11 (5) of the Act in view of section 11 (1)(d) of the Act. (ii) That the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that such condition is inserted under section 11(1

Om Kothari Foundation, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ITO, (Exemption) Ward-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society v/s Assistant Director of Income- tax (Exemption), Trust Circle 2, New Delhi 18 Taxman.com (104) Delhi ITAT. Under section 11(1)(a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes to the extent to which such income is applied ... purpose for a specific period subject to fulfilment of certain conditions prescribed under the law. The legislature has employed the word 'applied' in section 11(1)(a). The Apex Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 held that the word

Centre for Development Communication Trust, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

bidding process. Thus, assessee's act is damaging to fair process of bidding too. 7.11 It is important to mention here that having section 11(1) which makes the income of trust exempt only on two ground, (i) clause (a), (b), (c) make exempt only the income from property held

ITO(E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavitha Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4766/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: 28/05/2024
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

donor. According to the Assessing Officer, the entire set by the donor. According to the Assessing Officer, the entire interpretation of section 11(1)(d) of the Act was done wrongly by the interpretation of section 11(1)(d) of the Act was done wron interpretation of section 11(1 ... accordance with the provisions of section section 11(5) of the Act in accordance with the provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Act. The AO further contended th 11(1)(d) of the Act. The AO further contended that the corpus donation at the corpus donation