“maximum marginal rate”

Chapter I - PreliminarySection 2 - DefinitionsSection 2(29C) / ITR-6 Schedule 115TD587 judgments

The decision most relied on for maximum marginal rate is 1. Father Mullers Charitable Institutions 363 IT 230 (Kar.) 2. DIT(E) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (249 ITR 533), cited in 108 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on maximum marginal rate

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.

Trust (249 ITR 533) (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Red Rose School (163 Taxman 19 (All.) 4. DIT(E) v. Alarippu (

172 ITR 698 · 1988 · High Court

citing judgments

Income received by a trust from sources like extra fees can be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, while other income remains eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

CWT v. Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s

108 ITR 555 · 1977 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Where the shares of beneficiaries in a trust are determinate, trustees must be assessed separately for each beneficiary's share, treating each beneficiary as an individual. The income is then taxed at the marginal rate applicable to individuals, not at the maximum rate for an association of persons.

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.

CIT v. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

336 ITR 209 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) is not maintainable when both the payer and payee are assessed at the maximum marginal rate, as it results in a revenue-neutral situation.

Kar.) 2. DIT(E) vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (249 ITR 533) (Bom.) 3. CIT v. Red Rose School (

224 ITR 358 · High Court

citing judgments

Income received by a trust that is considered 'extra fees' is taxable at the maximum marginal rate, while other income of the trust is eligible for exemption under Section 11.

Araadhya Jain Trust v. ITO

173 Taxmann.com 343 · 2025 · ITAT

citing judgments

The definition of maximum marginal rate under section 2(29C) can be interpreted to determine the applicable surcharge rates, particularly for income including dividends, as per the First Schedule to the Finance Act. This affects how surcharge is calculated on taxable income.

Judgments citing maximum marginal rate

V. Meera Charitable Trust, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Madurai

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

ITA 2140/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2140/Chny/2024 िनधा8रण वष8 /Assessment Year: 2022-23 V. Meera Charitable Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 4, Geethalaya Building, Vs. Exemption Ward, Chairman Shanmugam Road, Madurai. Sivakasi, Virudhunagar-626123. [Pan: Aaatv 0582C]

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A FGFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 111ASection 112Section 112ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 2Section 2(29)Section 2(29)(C)

return of income of Rs.10,46,180/-. The CPC, Bengaluru vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act has computed tax at maximum marginal rate and further levied surcharge of Rs.1,16,126/-. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal against the levy of surcharge on the ground that ... held that surcharge is leviable on the AOP as the tax has been charged at the maximum marginal rate. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee before us has argued that assessee’s income is only Rs. 10,46,180/- and therefore, surcharge is not leviable

Dy. C.I.T. Cir-.2, Nagpur vs. Shri Govinddas Goverdhan Daga, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 614/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

Rs.5,02,17,484/-. each, aggregating t It is thus established that bot the AOPs had paid taxes at the maximum marginal rate. It is also the fact as emanated from the records that the maximum balance shown outstanding in the name of these two AOPs is brought onward balance ... Rs.12,15,89,697/- in the hands of M/s. Ridhi Sidhi Associates on which both the AOPS have been assessed to tax at maximum marginal rate. Therefore, to my considered opinion, the addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.8,10,99,937/- deserves to be deleted. These grounds are allowed

Shri Go0Vinddas Govardhandas Daga, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Circle 2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 601/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

Jai Narayan Maheshwari, Aligarh vs. ITO Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 209/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jai Narayan Maheshwari, Vs. Ito, 17/126, Pipal Wali Gali, Ward-4(1)(3), Jaiganj, Aligarh, Up Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abupm7189B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gargh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

consider only a sum of Rs 11,49,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act to be taxed at maximum marginal rate and not at an enhanced rate of 60%. We would like to make it very clear that this decision is rendered in the peculiar facts

Sh Ranjan Kumar Arora, Farrukhabad vs. ACIT Circle 4(2)(1), Farrukhabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ranjan Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5/30, Nehru Road, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up- 2096625 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpa0524D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

consider only a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act to be taxed at maximum marginal rate and not at an enhanced rate of 60%. We would like to make it very clear that this decision is rendered in the peculiar facts

Iei Shareholding (Cultural Activities 1987) Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5722/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankariei Shareholding (Cultural Vs Ito, Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai Activities 1987) Trust, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbaiion House, 4Thfloor, Mumbai. Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 011. Pan : Aaat10078E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: ShriMotichand GuptaFor Respondent: Shri KiranUnavekar, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 164(1)Section 167Section 250

First Appellate Authority erred in facts as well as in law by determining the tax liability of the Appellant at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld Assessing Officer and the Ld First Appellate Authority has erred in facts ... Processing Centre (CPC), vide its order [intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act) dated 16.03.2023 has taxed the income of the trust at Maximum Marginal Rate, while the Appellant Trust seeks to be taxed at slab rates. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Appellant as the condonation

Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Raipur

ITA 518/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 518/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 201415)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Officer in a mechanical manner. However, the claim of the assessee was, therefore, rejected by the CPC and the assessee was taxed at maximum marginal rate without giving deduction of the expenses. However, the assessee filed the M.A which was also rejected by the Assessing Officer. In view

DCIT Central Circle 8(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mukesh D Ambani, Mumbai

ITA 5123/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora andFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

5121/MUM/2024, CO 236/Mum/2024 | | 5 | AY 2005-06 | ITA 5118/MUM/2024, CO 237/Mum/2024 | | 6 | AY 2006-07 | ITA 5117/MUM/2024, CO 238/Mum/2024 | | Maximum Marginal Rate of Tax | Total of substantive additions (1/3rd share of Assessee) |---|---| | 30.00% | Rs.15,54,667 | 30.00% | Rs.16,26,667 | 30.00% | Rs.39,60,490 | 30.00% | Rs.20,15,414 | 30.00% | Rs.20

Gayatri Parivar Rachnatmak Trust, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward (Exemption), Vadodara

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

ITA 1480/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1480/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) बनाम/ Gayatri Parivar Income Tax Officer Ward (Exemption), Rachnatmak Trust Vs. At-Po. Masar Road, Padra, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat - 391421 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg4837F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28/01/2025 30/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna Gupta Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)

erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in charging tax at maximum marginal rate.” 5. Shri Tej Shah, the Ld. AR appearing for the assessee explained that the assessee is a trust and is running a Gausala. The books

Bassein Catholic Coop Bank Ltd, Vasai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road Thane

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

ITA 967/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2021-22 Bassein Catholic Coop Bank Assessment Unit, Ltd., Income Tax Department, Papdy S.O. Vs. Qureshi Mansion, Vasai Thane, Gokhale Road, Maharashtra Thane, Pan : Aaatb3965B Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Milind V. Sahasrabudhe For Revenue : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-01-2025

For Appellant: Shri Milind V. SahasrabudheFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 36(1)(viia)

passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue is set aside. 5. Ground No. 8 is related to the levying of tax at maximum marginal rate, since the status of the assessee was treated as a „Trust‟. Since we have held that the assessee should be assessed

B C House & Garden Condominium, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6272/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 271(1)(c)

Bengaluru, while processing the return of income of both the years under consideration, treated the assessee as AOP and accordingly levied tax at maximum marginal rate. Accordingly, a tax demand was raised in both the years in view of change in the rate of tax. It is pertinent to note

B C House & Garden Condominium, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6271/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande

Section 271(1)(c)

Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha, Puthuvype vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Kochi

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

ITA 730/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha .......... Appellant Puthuvype, Azhikal P.O. Cochin, Ernakulam 682501 [Pan: Aaatk5117G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Exemption Ward, Kochi Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)

vide intimation dated 06.08.2018 without making any adjustment to the returned income. However, the CPC levied tax at maximum marginal rate of tax. 2 Kudumbi Mahajana Sabha 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) after lapse of a period of 6 years from the date

Nam Group Aslali, Ahmedabad vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore-Present -the ITO, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1611/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26Section 67ASection 86

Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT-10 Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] in upholding the levy of surcharge at the maximum marginal rate under Section 167B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The levy of surcharge was determined pursuant to intimations issued ... demands arose due to the classification of the assessee as an AOP with indeterminate or unknown shares, leading to the application of the maximum marginal rate under Section 167B of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) against the orders u/s.143

Nam Group Aslali, Ahmedabad vs. AO, CPC, Bangalore- Present ITO. Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1610/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26Section 67ASection 86

Sarvajanik Seva Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-26(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee Trust is allowed

ITA 1948/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 115TSection 12ASection 250

order 4. The issue involved in the present appeal is in respect of applicability of provisions of section 115TD and charging tax at maximum marginal rate on accreted income when the provisions of section 115TD were introduced by finance act, 2016 with effect from 1.06.2016 and when registration

Sarvajanik Seva Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-26(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee Trust is allowed

ITA 1947/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 115TSection 12ASection 250

Shree Shyam Sales Corporation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(2), Raipur. (C.G.), Raipur

ITA 188/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 188/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 69C

added back to the income of the assessee u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same is taxed u/s 1155BBE at maximum marginal rate of tax. Show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 19.04.2021 wherein the draft assessment order was reproduced with a request ... total income of the assessee u/s 69C of the l. T. Act, 1961 and the same is taxed u/s 115BBE at maximum marginal rate of tax. Since, the Id. AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B for the year under consideration according to procedures provided

Shri K M Modi Kautumbic Trust, Porbandar vs. ADIT, CPC, Rajkot

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

ITA 715/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Diesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 715/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri K.M. Modi Kautaumbic Trust Vs. The Adit, Cpc Shri K. M. Modi Kautaumbic Trust Income Tax Office, Aayakar Pratish, Station Road, Porbandar Bhavan, Race Course Ring 360575 Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts8458H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ankit Anadkat, Ld. Ar, Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 164

Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi erred in Law and on facts and circumstances of the case for charging the income at AOP rate Le maximum marginal rate of income instead of normal rate of individual and demanded Rs. 67,980/- as against refund of Rs. 26,110/-levying by the assessee ... charged at normal rate of taxes. However Income Tax Processing Center per intimation u/s 143(1) dated 13.05.2019 has calculated tax at maximum marginal rate and demanded total Rs. 67,980/- as against refund of Rs. 26.110/-. 7. The appellant had filed an application

Mantika Beneficiary Trust, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1216/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmantika Beneficiary Trust, D 122, Amba Bari, Jaipur – 302 012. Pan No.:Aaetm7086Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 7(1), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rohan Sogani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT, Ld

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 160Section 163Section 250Section 9

business, tax shall be charged on the whole of the income in respect of which such person is so liable at the maximum marginal rate: Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply where such profits and gains are receivable under a trust declared by any person