“Section 164(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 164Section 164(2)145 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 164(2) is CIT v. K. Srinivasan (83 ITR 346), cited in 129 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 164(2)

CIT v. K. Srinivasan

83 ITR 346 · 1972 · Supreme Court

129

citing judgments

The term 'tax' includes surcharge and cess. Surcharge and additional surcharge are considered components of income tax, which can be levied as a basic charge, surcharge, special surcharge, and additional surcharge.

CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions

363 ITR 230 · 2014 · High Court

117

citing judgments

For a charitable trust, a violation of Section 13(1)(d) does not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11 on its total income. Instead, only income derived from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 11(5) or income diverted under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) is taxable.

1. Father Mullers Charitable Institutions 363 IT 230 (Kar.) 2. DIT(E) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust

249 ITR 533 · 2001 · High Court

108

citing judgments

Income of a trust that is taxable at the maximum marginal rate should be taxed accordingly, while other income is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

259 ITR 280 · 2003 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

Marck Biosciences Ltd. v. ITO

164 ITD 205 · 2017 · ITAT

citing judgments

Payments for strategic counselling and advisory services are not royalty if they do not involve imparting information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience, but rather are for business promotion, marketing, publicity, or financial advisory services.

CIT v. Fr, Mullers Charitable Institutions

51 Taxmann.com 378 · 2014 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Income earned from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act is taxable, but only to the extent of the income so earned, not the entire corpus. Circular No. 387, dated 06.07.1994, supports this interpretation and binds the revenue authorities.

CIT v. Working Women’s Forum

365 ITR 353 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

When an exemption is denied under Section 13(1)(c) or (d), the denial of exemption applies only to the portion of income that violates these provisions, not the entire income.

ITA Nos.162, 164, 165, 167 & 168 of 2002 Page 24 of 51 in CIT v. SS Ahluwalia

138 ITR 391 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate tribunal ought to remand a matter rather than set aside assessments entirely when jurisdiction is in question.

Judgments citing Section 164(2)

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

acceptable. Once, exemption is denied, income shall be computed under normal accounting principles by considering all income and expenses to determine profit/loss. The section 164(2) of the Income Tax Act reads as under- (2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

Bps Shikshan Sansthan, Choudhary Charan Singh, Sikar vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur

ITA 486/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 250

assessee and raised tax liability on the surplus, at MMR, while resorting to the provisions of section 164(2) of the Act . 4. The assessment proceedings were initiated on receipt of information from DDIT (Investigation)-III, Jaipur vide letter dated 11/12.01.2014 to ITO, Ward-1, Sikar, who in turn, communicated ... assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer shall also take into consideration the provisions of section BPS Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar. 13(1(a), Section 11, Section 164(2) of the Act as well as settled legal proposition as to the extent of the liability

Bps Shikshan Sansthan, Choudhary Charan Singh, Sikar vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur

ITA 485/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 250

Sakshi Roongta Benefit Trust, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Kota

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 385/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

denied. Before going into further in the matter of dispute at this stage it would be appropriate to refer to the provision of section 164(2) of the Act which reads as follows; Charge of tax where share of beneficiaries unknown. 164. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections

Samiksha Roongta Benefit Trust, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar vs. ITO, ITO Ward, Kota

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 384/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

Samiksha Roongta Benefit Trust, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kota

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 383/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

Keystone Foundation, Nilgiris vs. ACIT, Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

section 11 of the Act . On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to tax the assessee as AOP as per section 164(2) and (3) of the Act and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee. 6. Before us, the ld. AR vehemently argued that the said

Shri Rampurush Mandir Society, Cuncolim vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax - CPC, Bangalore

ITA 76/PAN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 75 & 76/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2022-23 Shri Rampurush Mandir Society Veroda, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa-403703. Pan : Aadas9268E . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Twin Appeals Of The Appellant Assessee Impugns Separate Din & Orders Both Dt. 10/03/2025 Passed By The Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Emanated Out Of Respective Summary Assessment Dt. 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt Centre [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Years 2021- 22 & 2022-23 [‘Ays’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 246ASection 250

submitted that, since the individual share of member of the appellant society is unknown & indeterminate therefore s/s (2) of section 167B and section 164(2) comes into play which triggers application of MMR on the income to be taxed in the hands of the appellant society. ITAT-Panaji Page ... fact that the assessee was not found entitled to the exemption under section 11 of the Act of 1961. A reference of section 164(2) of the Act of 1961 would be relevant for the aforesaid. If the assessee was not entitled to the exemption under section 11, the maximum

Shri Rampurush Mandir Society, Cuncolim vs. Assistant Director, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 75/PAN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji26 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr Narcinva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ish Gupta [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2Section 246ASection 250

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)

under section 10(34/35/38) because section 10(34/35/38) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. Clearly in this case, section 164(2) is attracted". 3. "Whether the ld.CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons

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)

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)

Shree Piyushpani Sthapatya Sangrahalay Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of

ITA 3428/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(8)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

seeking allowance of various expenses which is otherwise allowable. The ld. AR further submits that assessee is taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). Section 164(2) is not applicable in case assessee as it references only the trust which is not exempt. The ld. AR of the assessee pray that

Shree Piyushpani Sthapatya Sangrahalay Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy Director ITO Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of

ITA 3427/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(8)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Kongu Welfare Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 1298/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1298/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kongu Welfare Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.2/1, Vijayapuram Iind Street, Exemptions Ward 1, Chinnasalem – Tk, Villipuram, Chennai. Villupuram 606 201. [Pan:Aactk2793E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mudit Bohra, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Bohra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

assessee. He further submits that the Assessing Officer ought to have assessed the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) under section 164(2) of the Act and allowed expenditure incurred in the course of its activities. He further argued that the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the gross receipts ... prayed that suitable directions may be given to the Assessing Officer to tax net income by treating the assessee as an AOP under section 164(2) of the Act. 5. The ld. DR Ms. V. Supraja, Addl. CIT fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded to the file

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

assessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of proviso to Section 164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation

ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committe, Vijayawada

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

ITA 325/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

double the liability. The AO made an addition that the appellant has violated provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and applied provisions of section 164(2) and made the same addition u/s 40(a)(2b) and calculated the demand for both the additions and made the appellant liable for both

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

assessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of proviso to Section 164(2)— Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

assessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of proviso to Section 164(2)— Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation