← All Phrases

“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

Ap Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.298/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessme298Nt Year: 2021-22) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Vs. Dy. Cit Control Board, (Exemption Circle) Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan:Aaaja1610Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 11/03/2025 Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

detailed submission of the assessee has also been verified. The assessee vide its submissions mentioned supra has discussed and explained the application of income of accumulated income of Rs.3,86,62,540/- at length. The contention of the assessee in this matter has been perused and taken on record. However ... application of income out of the accumulated income is required to be explained with verifiable documentary. The assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence in the form of income and expenditure statement, ledgers, cash and bank statements, etc. 9. In view of the facts stated above, the order

ACIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot vs. Shri Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd, Rajkot

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

overriding effect on the provisions of Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The accounting standards applicable in income tax proceedings in India are either: a. Those issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which operates under a distinct parliamentary statute, i.e.,The Chartered ... Commissioner of Income-tax, Kochi* [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9(Ker.) HIGH COURT OF KERALA If assessee treats expenditure on acquisition of assets as application of income for charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), then assessee cannot claim depreciation on value of such assets. 7. That Ld. AR on behalf

Gallagher Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

In the result, we set-aside the said findings of the ld PCIT as well

ITA 3778/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2020-21 Gallagher Insurance Brokers The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-3, Unit No. 34, Tower-3, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Wing-B, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor City Mall, Maharshi Karve Road, Kohinoor City, Mumbai-400020. Kirol Road, Kurla West, Mumbai-400070. Pan : Aaaci7196J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahadev P. Lohia Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary Date Of Hearing : 31-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-08-2025 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 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Mumbai-3 [„Ld.Pcit‟], Dated 28-03-2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Taken Us Through The Findings Of The Ld.Pcit, Which Are Contained At Paragraph No. 7.2 & 7.3 Of The Impugned Order & The Contents Thereof Read As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Mahadev P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary
Section 263Section 40aSection 80G

there is no restriction under section 80G to the effect that the contribution should be voluntary and that the CSR spend is an application of income which is eligible for deduction from the gross total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 80G. 6. The word "donation ... exclusively for the purposes of the business is only allowed as a deduction for computing taxable business income. 13.2 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

Bhartiya Mahila Evam Gramin Uthan Sansthan, Basti vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 668/LKW/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2023-24 Bhartiya Mahila Evam Gramin Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Utthan Sansthan, Vill- Jakhni, Post- (Exemption) Labnapar, Dist- Basti Pan:Aadtb5654L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 12Ab(1)(B)(Ii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Registration. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow [ Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(E)] Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee Filed In Form 10Ab For Seeking Renewal Of Registration Stood Already Granted U/S 12Ab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By Passing An Ex-Parte Order & Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Case Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Activities Being Carried Out By The Assessee Are Not Charitable In Nature. 3. The Ld. A.O. Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Providing The Appellant Any Such Opportunity To Have His Say & To Make Compliance Of The Reasons Being Relied Upon By Him While Creating Tax Demand Against The Assessee. 4. The Appellant Reserves His Right To Advance Such Other Grounds Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Which He May Consider Fit & Appropriate, For Which He 1 Bhartiya Mahila Evam Gramin Uthan Sansthan A.Y. 2023-24 Craves Leaves To Amend, Alter Or Otherwise Modify The Grounds Appearing Hereinabove With Kind Permission Of The Office Of Cit-Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 12A

registration under section 12A, the ld. CIT(E) was required to see the objects of the assessee and not required to examine the application of income, which would have to be undertaken by the ld. AO on an year to year basis after the assessee files return of income claiming

Dar E Aqram Eductaion Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 739/PUN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738 & 739/Pun/2025 Dar E Arqam Education Charitable Trust, Galli No. 9, Sr. No. 54, Shivneri Nagar, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune-411048 Vs. Ito, Exemption, Ward – 1(2), Pune Pan: Aactd0454F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 18.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (“Cit(E)") Rejecting The Application(S) For Grant Of Registration U/S 12A & Approval U/S 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 29.09.2023 & 30.09.2023 Respectively. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Both The Appeals Have Been Filed With A Delay Of 293 Days Before The Tribunal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional Or Deliberate But Has Occurred For The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Are Of The View That The Delay Is Attributable To The Sufficient Cause. We, Therefore, In Light Of The Decisions Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc) & In The Case Of Inder Singh Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Reported In 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 339, Condone The Said Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal. 3. In Ita No.738/Pun/2025, The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E) In Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12A Of The Act While

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 36ASection 80G

objectives and these funds are lying idle year-to-year whereas various objects have duly been provided in the trust deed for application of income. Amount of Rs.143.15 lacs out of total assets of Rs.229.70 lacs as on 31/03/2023 is lying idle in bank accounts / FDRs without its actual utilisation