← All Phrases

“Section 11(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(6)170 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(6) is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(6)

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.

CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne
146 ITR 28 · 1984 · High Court
195
citing judgments

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court
191
citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli
330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court
113
citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

CIT v. Matriseva Trust
242 ITR 20 · 2000 · High Court
91
citing judgments

An excess of expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in previous years can be adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, and this adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

Govindu Naicker Estate v. ADIT
248 ITR 368 · 2001 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A charitable trust may adjust expenditure incurred for religious or charitable purposes in an earlier year against the income of a subsequent year, which is considered an application of income for the subsequent year under Section 11. This principle is guided by commercial considerations and the benevolent intent of Section 11.

Judgments citing Section 11(6)

Suman Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8998/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarsuman Educational Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 39-A, 3Rd Floor, Maker Tower-F, 2(3), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cuff Parade, Colaba, Vs. Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 005 Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aahts 1944 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Respondent By : Shri Ankit Tiwari Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey:

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Tiwari
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 68

Rs.62,09,158/- on account of depreciation u/s. 11(6) of the Act. B) The ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that section 11(6) is inserted by way of amendment of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 and the said amendment is to be applied prospectively ... failed to appreciate the settled position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that section 11(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 operates prospectively, and therefore does not restrict the allowance of depreciation in respect of assets acquired prior to the insertion of section 11(6), which continues

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

learned C1T(A) erred in denying the set off of excess application of income of earlier years against the income assessed relying on section 11(6) without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable in the present case. 6.2 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable ... learned CIT(A) erred in denying the set off of excess application of income of earlier years against the income assessed relying on section 11(6) without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable in the present case. 6.2 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

learned C1T(A) erred in denying the set off of excess application of income of earlier years against the income assessed relying on section 11(6) without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable in the present case. 6.2 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable ... learned CIT(A) erred in denying the set off of excess application of income of earlier years against the income assessed relying on section 11(6) without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable in the present case. 6.2 On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable

S B Manghanani Chartiable, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 1508/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ema Bindu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250

11(2) of the Act. The AO had disallowed the claim of depreciation by relying on the amendment made w.e.f. 01/04/2015 to section 11(6) of the Act. 3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee had also relied

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 803/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(c)

Income Tax Act as observed by the AO vide Para 13 of the Assessment Order. The counsel has referred to the provision of Section 11(6) which reads as under: “In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then ... which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. This newly inserted section 11(6) of the Act w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16 restricts allowance of depreciation for the purposes of application if income, as this section assumes that assessee

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Udaipur -2, Udaipur

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 802/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(c)

Income Tax Act as observed by the AO vide Para 13 of the Assessment Order. The counsel has referred to the provision of Section 11(6) which reads as under: “In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then ... which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. This newly inserted section 11(6) of the Act w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16 restricts allowance of depreciation for the purposes of application if income, as this section assumes that assessee

Narrotam Morarjee Institute of Shipping, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)Ward 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5559/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Narrotam Morarjee Institute Of National Faceless Shipping, Mumbai Assessment Appeal Centre 76 – Jolly Maker, Chambers – 2, (Nfac) Office Of The Vs. Vivek Shah, Mumbai, Nariman Commissioner Of Income Point S.O.-400021 Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit(A) Delhi (Pan : Aaatn0042R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025- 26/1078465227(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against The Penalty Order U/S. 270A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi ["The Cit (A)") U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act For Short Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Passed

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Afaqui, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 250Section 270A

this respect, he observed that depreciation is not allowable u/s 11 of the Act. He thus, concluded that in view of provisions of Section 11(6), depreciation is not allowable and thus, held it to be disallowed. In this regard also, penalty proceedings u/s 270A were initiated for under-reporting

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Motijheel, Kanpur

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

1 ITA No. 4580/Del/2025 DCIT Vs. Kanpur Development Authority IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B' NEW

Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

ITA 6544/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv. & MrFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 35ASection 80

been made effective from 1 April, 2015 and will be applicable from Assessment Year 2015 2016 onwards. Similar amendment, simultaneously introduced through Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, in respect of the deduction for depreciation in the case of charitable trusts, has been held ... before us is 2013-14, we agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that a similar amendment, simultaneously introduced through Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, in respect of the deduction for depreciation in the case of charitable trusts for which

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.65,39,240/- for the period under consideration. The AO noted that as per section 11(6) of the Act, which is newly inserted by the Finance (2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, where any income is required to be applied or accumulated ... which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. In view of section 11(6) of the Act, the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.65,39,240/- was also disallowed and taxed accordingly. Thus, the AO completed

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

noticed that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.65,39,240/- for the period under consideration. The AO noted that as per section 11(6) of the Act, which is newly inserted by the Finance (2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015, where any income is required to be applied or accumulated ... which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. In view of section 11(6) of the Act, the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.65,39,240/- was also disallowed and taxed accordingly. Thus, the AO completed

Podar Literacy and Education Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

treated the acquisition cost of the relevant assets as application of income in earlier years and, in view of the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act, depreciation on such assets could not again be allowed, as that would amount to a double deduction. 5. It is pertinent ... findings, held that the assessee had made a claim of depreciation which was impermissible in law, being in clear violation of section 11(6) of the Act. According to the learned CIT(A), the claim of depreciation on assets whose acquisition cost had already been treated as application of income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 117/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Carpet Income-Tax (Exemption), Technology, Chauri Road, Srn, Lucknow Bhadohi Pan: Aaaji0124M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,70,77,516/- That Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Surplus Above 15% Of Gross Receipts. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Deleting The Addition Made Of Rs. 1,70,77,516/- On Account Of Amount Surplus Above 15% Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Instead Of Utilizing This Amount Or Crediting This Amount To Income & Expenditure Account, This Sum Was Directly Credited To Balance Sheet. 2. Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Society Is Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 11.12.2006 Of The Ld. Cit, Varanasi. From A Perusal Of The Papers Submitted By The Assessee As Well As The Data Available Online, The Ld. Assessing Officer Found That There Was A Receipt Of A Grant

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 12A

deduction under section 11(1) of the Act. He also disallowed depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, after these disallowances, the total income of the assessee was computed

St. Francis Xavier Church, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Thane

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

ITA 5883/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2024-25 St. Francis Xavier Church Trust, Income Tax Officer, Plot 379/B, Behind Orion Mall Exemption Ward, Thane & S.T. Depot, Vs. Quershi Mansion, Panvel-410206. Gokhale Road, Pan : Aaets4913N Naupada, Thane-400602. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. B. Brahma Vidya Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25-11-2025 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 Addl/Jcit(A)-Agra, Dated 29-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2024-25, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Exemption/Deductions Under Section 11 Of The Act Resorted To By The Centralized Processing Centre [Cpc), Income Tax Department, Bengaluru (The Learned Assessing Officer) While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Act On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 10-Bb Was Filed Belatedly, Though With The Return Of Income Which Was Filed Within The Extended Time Limit Under Section 139(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Smt. B. Brahma Vidya
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

apart for specified purposes under Section 11(2) of the Act. 2.1.3. A sum of Rs.22,688/- under section 11 read with Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital expenditure incurred to be allowed as application of income. It is submitted that the disallowances referred

Paramahamsa Education Society, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1176/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vishal S Rao, CA
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Mithra (Madras Institute to Habilitate Retarded Afflicted), Chennai vs. ITO, Ward 3, Chennai

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

ITA 1839/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1839/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Mithra (Madras The Income Tax Officer, Institute To Habilitate Vs. Exemptions Ward 3, Retarded Afflicted), Chennai. Plot No.D-171, R V Nagar, Anna Nagar East, S.O, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 102. Pan: Aaatm 0481H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri M. Karuppiah, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ought to be allowed as application of income. The FAA however rejected the contentions of the assessee. The FAA held that as per Section 11(6) of the Act, assessee is not entitled to depreciation on assets for which cost has been allowed as application of income in the previous ... cost of which has not been allowed as application of income in the relevant assessment year or in the earlier assessment years. Section 11(6) of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2015 by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 clearly stipulates depreciation shall not be allowed if the cost of acquisition of asset

The National Sodality Centre, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4153/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanthi PatelFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat (SR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

clause (2) of Explanation to section 11(1) of the Act. 3. A sum of Rs.158/- under section 11 read with Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital expenditure incurred to be allowed as application of income. It is submitted that the disallowances referred to above

The Trained Nurses Association of India Maharashtra Branch, Vashi vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 3276/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalthe Trained Nurses Association Of India Maharashtra Branch C-2/15/03 Geetanjali Co Op Hsg Society, Sector -16 Vashi, ............... Appellant Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan : Aabtt6522B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………… Respondent Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai-400012. Assessee By : Mrs. Bharti Veer Revenue By : Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Mrs. Bharti VeerFor Respondent: Shri. Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 57

claimed under section 57 of the Act were disallowed. Further, the AO disallowed the depreciation of INR 9180 under section 11(6) of the Act. 5. Even before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not comply with any of the hearing notices, and no details/submissions were filed against

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)

went on a wrong presumption and applied the provisions of Trust to it and disallowed the depreciation of Rs.3,04,850/- under section 11(6) of the Act. Aggrieved by this disallowance of depreciation, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. During the hearing before the ITAT

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)

High Court of Bombay in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra) which deals with the assessment year prior to the amendment brought into section 11(6)/(7). The impugned year that is AY 2009-10 is also prior to the aforesaid amendment brought into section 11 and therefore, is covered