← All Phrases

“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
86
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
61
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
46
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
34
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
27
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
22
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
22
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

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

purview of the provisions of the said section. The appellant filed the instant appeal stating that the AO has charged the taxes at maximum marginal rate. Since, the claim of the appellant does not pertain to the issue of the order against which the instant appeal has been filed ... purview of the provisions of the said section. The appellant filed the instant appeal stating that the AO has charged the taxes at maximum marginal rate. Since, the claim of the appellant does not pertain to the issue of the order against which the instant appeal has been filed

ITO, Mumbai vs. Vatika Rayons Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2895/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 56Section 68

without creation of any liability corresponding to such gains. With such proposition also the assessee is liable for tax on such amounts at maximum marginal rates. 29. However, considering the fact of the case, it is of primary importance to assess the genuineness of the stated transactions

Dineshkumar Nemichand Jain, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(6), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 781/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

sustained, it should be taxed as business income under section 44AD 8% and not at the maximum marginal rate under section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the application of the maximum marginal rate ... That in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) ought not to have applied the maximum marginal rate under section 115BBE when it can be clearly demonstrated that the alleged amount of cash as generated out of business activity only and therefore

Anant Bajaj Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1995/MUM/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Anant Bajaj Trust Deputy Director Of Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhavan, Bengaluru Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aagta3192B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate & Shri M. A. Gohel, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri M. A. Gohel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

recognised u/s. 12A and is assessed to tax in the status of AOP. There is no dispute regarding the applicability of maximum marginal rate (MMR) to the assessee. It filed its return of income on 16.07.2022, reporting total income at Rs. 68,72,26,170/-. The said return was processed ... issue before the Hon'ble Special Bench was “Whether, in the case of private discretionary trusts whose income is chargeable to tax at maximum marginal rate, surcharge is chargeable at the highest applicable rate or at a slab rates?” 6.2. Finding that there are decisions of the Tribunal holding contrary

Tulsi Trust, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1410/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaltulsi Trust Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Naraina Industrial Vs. New Delhi. Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028 Pan-Aaatt0503H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mahender Gohel, Ar (Virtual) Department By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl./ Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hyderabad [Cit(A) In Short], Dated 26.03.2025 In Appeal No. Addl. / Jcit-(A) - 4 Hyderabad/10061/2022-23 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.07.2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,67,53,750/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) By The Cpc Tulsi Trust Vs. Dcit Wherein The Assessee Was Charged Tax At A Flat Rate Of 30% & Surcharge As Applicable As Against The Normal Rate Of Tax As Per The Slab Provided In The Act Paid By The Assessee. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 250

Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the Tax levied by the learned Assessing Officer at flat rate of 30% i.e. Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR), instead of normal slab rates applicable in the case of the appellant. 1.2 The learned CIT (Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer failed ... assessed to tax as per the rates prescribed normal slab rate, however, it was assessed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) by treating the same as f AOP/BOI. He submits that in the case of the assessee itself for subsequent assessment years, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed to be taxes

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

separately processed summarily u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 whereby the income returned by the assessee were charged to tax @ maximum marginal rate [‘MMR’ hereinafter] and further with maximum surcharge on such income tax computed at MMR. Aggrieved by the application of MMR as against rates applicable ... Income Tax Act 1961 are applicable to the appellant case. 4. The ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax on the total income of the appellant without considering the facts and the submission made by the appellant

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

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

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

separately processed summarily u/s 143(1) of the Act on 23/09/2022 & 16/03/2023 whereby the income returned by the assessee were charged to tax @ maximum marginal rate [‘MMR’ hereinafter] and further with maximum surcharge on such income tax computed at MMR. Aggrieved by the application of MMR as against rates applicable ... Income Tax Act 1961 are applicable to the appellant case. 4. The ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the maximum marginal rate of tax on the total income of the appellant without considering the facts and the submission made by the appellant

Bapa Bajrangdas Recidanciy Velfer Association, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

expense incurred of Rs. 23,86,601/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding tax at maximum marginal rate. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 8. We observe that

Bapa Bajrangdas Recidanciy Velfer Association, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 7(2)1, Ahmedabad

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 250

expense incurred of Rs. 23,86,601/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding tax at maximum marginal rate. 4. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.” 8. We observe that

Sree Sree Lachhminarain Jew Ramchandra Jew Shambsada Shew Jew, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 37(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 366/KOL/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 167B

individual. However, the tax has been calculated in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 07.10.2024 at the maximum marginal rate of 30% plus HEC as applicable and demand raised at Rs.1,53,230/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals ... such association or body are indeterminate or unknown, tax shall be charged on the total income of the association or body at the maximum marginal rate : 5.2. The PAN of the appellant is AAAJS2050Aand the fifth letter is ‘J’ that means it is an Artificial juristic person

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 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 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

dated 31.03.2014 determining the total income at Rs.3,60,85,715/- and the same was taxed as AOP at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) as per the provisions of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

M V Subramanian Family Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1087/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1087/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 M/S. M V Subramanian Family The Income Tax Officer, Trust, Non-Corporate Ward 1(1), 10, Valliammai Achi Road, Vs. Chennai. Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085. Pan: Aaetm 9151C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Ashwin, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 111ASection 112ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 234BSection 234C

While the Ld. Respondent was correct in taxing the Appellant as an Associations of Persons (AOP)at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR), he failed to provide due cognizance of the fact that the entire income of the Appellant amounting to INR 82,21,860 comprised only of special incomes ... under sections 111A or112A of the Act 2.4 The Ld. Respondent ought to have appreciated that section 2(29C) of the Act defines "Maximum Marginal Rate" as the rate of income tax (including surcharge on income tax, if any) applicable in relation to the highest slab of income in case

Gauri Ananya Marriage Beneficiary Trust, Kanpur vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 388/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Gauri Ananya Marriage V. The Dcit Beneficiary Trust Circle 1(1)(1) 133/185, M Block Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aactg6467D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.10.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Trust Created Vide Trust Deed Dated 04.01.2016 For The Benefit Of Two Minor Daughters Of Shri Sharad Kumar Agarwal, Namely Kumari Gauri & Kumari Ananya. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,86,279/-. As Per Computation Of Income Of The Assessee- Trust, The Tax Payable Was Rs.24,337/-. However, While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 164Section 43(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the ITA No.388/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 7 Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore charged tax at maximum marginal rate under section 164 of the Act and worked out the same at Rs.1,50,261/-. Against this, the assessee filed a rectification application, dated ... appeal of the assessee by holding that since the shares of the beneficiaries were indeterminate, the tax had to be charged at the maximum marginal rate. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging impugned order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

Punit Deora Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward, 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6792/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 161Section 24

beneficiaries and TDS credit be granted. 8. Ld. CIT(A) in confirming action of Ld. AO CPC in taxing income by applying maximum marginal rate without appreciating that beneficiaries being ‘individual' rate of tax applicable be as applicable to individuals. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... assessee's hand. It is submitted that House Property income is being taxed in individual hands of each beneficiary at maximum marginal rate. 4.1 In respect of intimation order u/s 143(1),it is contented that the adjustment made is beyond permissible adjustments u/s 143(1)(a). 3rdproviso

Pradyumna Dalmia Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., Ward - 33(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1613/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

surcharge should be levied depending upon the income of the assessee and not on the basis of the tax rate applied, which was maximum marginal rate of tax as the assessee was a private discretionary trust. The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under ... Assessment Year 2021-22 on 29.11.2021 declaring a total income of 3,04,31,120/- on which tax was calculated at the maximum marginal rate which worked out to Rs. 88,43,114/-. While filing the return of income, the surcharge was calculated based on the slab rate applicable

Devasakayam Aangilappalli Paripalana Sabai, Madurai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:933/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Devasakayam Aangilappalli Income Tax Officer, Paripalana Sabai, Vs. Exemptions Ward, No.11, Devasakayam Matriculation Madurai. Hr.Sec.School, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. [Pan:Aaatd-0964-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

date prescribed under the Act read with rule 12A(1)(b), thereby assessing the entire gross receipts of Rs.93,21,637/- at maximum marginal rate without considering expenditure incurred during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2018-19. The assessee filed the audit report in Form

Rose Trust, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-49(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 167BSection 234C

members of the assessee AOP are not undetermined, therefore, tax shall be charged at the total income of the assessee at the maximum marginal rate as per section 167B of the Act. Similarly, after considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) sustained the surcharge levied ... been raise whether the provisions of section 167 A of the Income-tax Act which provide for charging of tax at the maximum marginal rate on the total income of an association of persons where the individual shares of members in the income of such association are indeterminate or unknown

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Western Geco International Limited, Haryana

The Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 141/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 141/Del/2024 (A.Y 2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

under section 44BB of the Act. c) Interest received on income tax refund of INR 476,230 chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate of 40%. 4. The AO completed the assessment on 11/03/2024 under section 143(3) r.w.s144C(3) of the Act, at an income

St.Antonys Friary, Kollam vs. ITO, (Exemption), Koll.Am

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 St. Antony’S Friary, .......... Appellant Tillery, Kollam [Pan: Aaats 6510 M] Vs. Ito (Exemption), Kollam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ivan Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

income and similarly, the sale of live stock of Rs. 10,000/- as a income, however, assessed the tax at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR). 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order has partly allowed the appeal directing the AO to verify

A L Sreenivasa Shenoy & Others, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 326/COCH/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2024-25 A.L. Sreenivasa Shenoy & Others .......... Appellant Shenoy Chambers, Shanmugham Road Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Aahaa1748F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi Appellant By: Shri Deepak Jose, Ca & Shri Sivakumar, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2

this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CPC, without fully understanding the definition of maximum marginal rate as defined u/s. 2(29C) of the Act, erroneously applied surcharge at higher rate of 37%. It is further submitted that the rate ... heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue in dispute is with regard to what should be the maximum marginal rate to be applied to the appellant trust. In the case of private trusts, whose income is charged to tax at 3 A.L. Sreenivasa Shenoy