“application of income”

Judicial DoctrinesDiversion vs ApplicationDiversion vs Application1,603 judgments

The decision most relied on for application of income is Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (402 ITR 640), cited in 1,596 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on application of income

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT

402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court

1,596

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court

1,183

citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.

295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court

1,162

citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT

394 ITR 449 · 2017 · Supreme Court

683

citing judgments

Expenditure can only be disallowed under Section 14A if the income is exempt and not part of the total income. The Assessing Officer must first record dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts or computation before proceeding to make a disallowance under Section 14A or applying Rule 8D.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI

440 ITR 26 · 2022 · High Court

614

citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT

291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court

565

citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

CIT v. Kaushalya

216 ITR 660 · 1995 · High Court

511

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not invalidated by the Assessing Officer's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the show cause notice, provided the assessee understood the exact charge and suffered no prejudice, indicating an application of mind by the AO.

Judgments citing application of income

Kali Kalusha Nasana Seva Trust, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B.V.R.Swamy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 143(1)

intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act came to be issued on 2 26.09.2013, wherein the expenses claimed by the assessee representing application of income, has not been allowed. It was submission that the adjustment which has been done in the intimation

All India Spices Exporters Forum, Ernakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Ernakulam

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

ITA 1072/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Expiry Of Time Allowed U/S 139(1). As Per Section 11(2), As Applicable For Ay 2014-15 There Was No Date Specified As To The Period Within Which The Form Has To Be Filed For Availing Exemption. The Amendment In Section 11(2) That Filing Of Necessary Forms Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As A Pre-Condition To Claim The Exemption Under Section 11(2) Was Substituted By The Finance Act With Effect From 01.04.2016 Which Is Not Applicable For Ay 2014- 15. Hence The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Denying The Exemption.

For Appellant: Shri. G Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

exemption. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) went wrong in upholding the demand as per CPC Intimation and in not considering the application of income while processing of the return of income. Thus the gross income is treated as the taxable income. While processing of return of income

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

furthermore added back the same of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting ... However, the assessee had failed to furnish Form 9A and therefore, the amount of Rs.18,18,45,925/- would not be treated as application of income and therefore, the exemption under section 11(1)(a) was not allowable to the assessee. With regard to the accumulation of income in excess

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

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

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

furthermore added back the same of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55,15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting ... However, the assessee had failed to furnish Form 9A and therefore, the amount of Rs.18,18,45,925/- would not be treated as application of income and therefore, the exemption under section 11(1)(a) was not allowable to the assessee. With regard to the accumulation of income in excess

The Bombay Society of the Franciscan Clarist Sisters of the Most Blessed Sacrament, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitabl or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter. (3) Any income referred to in sub-section (2) which- (a) is applied ... attention to the fact that the assessee had spent a sum of Rs. 1,67,47,400 and to this extent, the application of income for charitable purposes has been accepted by the AO in AY 2014-15 in the order of assessment dated 26.12.2016 passed

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Haryana

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

preceding year; Large “any other amount allowable as deduction” claimed in schedule BP of return; Reduction in profit because of 3 .3489/DEL/2024 application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards; Custom Duty application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards; Custom Duty application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards; Custom Duty paid as shown

Public Health Research Institute of India(Phrii) Trust, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Mysuru

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

ITA 830/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 69C

return of income declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of Page 2 of 4 accumulation and application of income. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had shown total expenditure of ₹1,61,28,787 as against total income of ₹44,70,224. Since

Aditya Birla Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4474/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (virtually appear), Shri Yogesh Thar, ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

activities outside India. 11. The Ld.AR relied on following judgments in support of certain legal propositions as under: a. Proposition 1: Application of income 'for the purposes in India' is relevant and not 'expenditure incurred within or outside India'. CIT(E) v. Ohio University Christ College ... Mumbai - Trib). The headnotes of the above decision reads as under: “The requirement under section 11 is for application of income for charitable purposes in India and its does 12 Aditya Birla Education Trust not restrict the application of income within the territory of India. The charitable purpose for which

Township Real Estate Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3303/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishith Khatri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80G

aforesaid provision is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 and is reproduced as under; "CSR expenditure, being an application of income, is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business. As the application of income is not allowed as deduction ... legislative intent and the rationale of disallowance of CSR expenditure referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, that such expenditure is application of income and not incurred for the purposes of business. We are of considered view that this in itself justifies the grant of deduction

M/S Enam Asset Management Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 2756/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

Email Pharmaceuical Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Emil Pharmaceutical V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Income Tax-4 101, Mangalam, Kulupwadi Room No. 629, Aayakar Road, Borivali East, Mumbai Bhawan, Maharishi Karve –400101, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0922A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, CA (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Delhi vs. Maharaji Educational Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2112/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 2112/Del/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs Maharaji Educational E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Trust, H-1, Sector 12, Delhi Santosh Nagar, Pratap Pan: Aaatm5225F Vihar, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ca Suresh K. Gupta Revenue By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

Section 10Section 10BSection 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 14A

15/02/2922. An intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has been issued by the CPC by making adjustment by denying the claim of application of income of Rs. 10,27,06,176/- on the ground of delay in filing Audit Report and return of income with prescribed time limit. Aggrieved

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

appeals, the assessee has raised certain common grounds of appeal, facts in both the years are similar except variation of figure of application of income under section 11 of Income Tax Act. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided ... assessee filed return of income in extended period. The assessing officer / Central Processing Centre (CPC) while processing the return of income not allowed application of income under section 11. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there are series of decision by Tribunal and High Courts wherein

Church of Our Lady of Immaculate Conception, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 4998/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254(1)

Agilent Technologies (International) Private Limited, Manesar, Gurgaon vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3684/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Agilent Technologies Vs. Dcit, (International) Private Limited, Circle 1(1), Plot No.Cp-11, Sector 8, Imt, Gurgaon Manesar, (Haryana) Gurgaon - 122051 Aadca4115C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Mayank Khannam, Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 19Section 21Section 92C

aforesaid provision is given in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 and is reproduced as under; “CSR expenditure, being an application of income, is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business, As the application of income is not allowed as deduction ... legislative intent and the rationale of disallowance of CSR expenditure referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, that such expenditure is application of income and not incurred for the purposes of business. We are of considered view that this in itself justifies the grant of deduction

Sree Vishwabharathi Charitable Trust, Bengaluru vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(1), Benglauru, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 859/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.H Nagaraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 69C

assessee had not furnished the required details and had not filed the audit report in Form 10B, the AO disallowed the claim of application of income of Rs. 30,45,214/- by invoking section 69C of the Act. The amount was added to the total income. The AO thus assessed

Riddhi Siddhi Sewa Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Completion Of The Processing U/S 143(1). 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3.Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

making adjustment of Rs. 11,88,030/- while processing the return even after accepting the contention of assessee that application of income of Rs. 11,88,030/- has been incorrectly reported twice in Point No. 23 & Point No. 27(c) of Form No. 10BB for the 2 Riddhi Siddhi Sewa ... return of income, against donation receipt of Rs.13,35,100/-, expenditure of Rs.11,88,030/- was claimed as application of income and surplus of Rs.1,47,069/- was claimed exempt u/s 11 of the Act. However, in the audit report filed in Form No.10BB, the application of income of Rs.11

Rajasthan Ophthalmological Society, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

invested before the end of the previous year, the Assessing Officer's action in disallowing the claim of Rs.95,00,000 towards application of income is upheld. Since the accumulated funds invested in the prescribed mode are to be utilised for the purpose for which it is accumulated within next

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

which reads as under: "Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, any sum payable by any trust or institution shall be considered as application of income in the previous year in which such sum is actually paid by it (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability ... which reads as under: "Explanation. For the purpose of this section, any sum payable by any trust or institution shall be considered as application of income in the previous year in which such sum is actually paid by it (irrespective of the previous year in which the liability

Chandan Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

ITA 3444/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL