← 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

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3243/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

erred in rejecting the grounds raised by the appellant, about the absence of any findings relating to application of Income generated from such unaccounted transactions. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred to adjudicate all the grounds raised by the appellant. 1.3 The grounds as raised by the revenue read

Bab-E-Rehmat Educational Society, Mumbra Thane vs. AO Exemtion Ward Thane, Quereshi Mansion

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

ITA 3119/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Bab-E-Rehmat Educational Society Ao Exemption Ward Thane Fakir Shah Baba Hill Road, Near Darul Falah, Near Sahil Hotel, Kausa, Vs. Mumbai – 400612. Pan/Gir No. Aabtb7190H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Bengaluru (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2023-24. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1) Rejection Of Approval Claimed U/S 12Aa Is Bad In Law Assessee Having Exemption Certificate U/S 12Aa Dated 25 April 2016, As Per Old Registration Process Once An Organization Obtains Section 12Aa Registration, The Validity Of The Registration Is Perpetual Unless It Is Cancelled Or Revoked By The Income Tax Department. Unlike Certain Registrations Requiring Periodic Renewal, Section 12Aa Of Income Tax Act Has No Expiration Date Or A Specific Time Limit. Which Is Valid For Life Time Of Society/Trust That Means Appellant Is Eligible For 12Aa Registration Till Cancellation Or Revoked By The Income Tax Department. Bad-E-Rehmat Educational Society

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, SR. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 250

Officer [2023] (Bangalore - Trib.) It was held that in the absence of the registration under the relevant sections, there cannot be any application of income. However, the gross receipts cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee trust. The income earned by the assessee and expenditure relatable

Cheruvathur Foundation, Kochi vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 1063/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cheruvathur Foundation .......... Appellant Hig 5, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aabtc0724E] Vs. Acit (Exemptions), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Chennai, Dated 23.10.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Charitable Trust Found With The Object Of Imparting Education. It Is Duly Registered U/S. 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Appellant Trust Filed Return Of Income For 2014-15 On 31.03.2015 Disclosing Nil Income After Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. In 2 Cheruvathur Foundation The Return Of Income The Appellant Claimed The Amount Spent On Acquisition Of Fixed Assets & Repayment Of Loans To Bank As Application Of Income. The Said Return Of Income Was Processed By The Cpc Vide Intimation Dated 16.03.2016 By Making Adjustment Of The Cost Of Fixed Assets Of Rs. 1,25,20.205/- & Repayment Of Loans Of Rs. 4,68,87,408/- By Not Allowing As Application Of Income. Being Aggrieved By The Said Intimation, An Application U/S. 154 Of The Act Was Filed Before The Cpc. The Intimation Was Amended By Allowing The Cost Of Asset As An Application Of Income & Confirmed The Adjustment Of Repayment Of Loan Of Rs. 4,68,87,408/- & Also Not Allowed Carry Forward Of Excess Amount Spent In Earlier Years.

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Foundation the return of income the appellant claimed the amount spent on acquisition of fixed assets and repayment of loans to bank as application of income. The said return of income was processed by the CPC vide intimation dated 16.03.2016 by making adjustment of the cost of fixed assets ... repayment of loans of Rs. 4,68,87,408/- by not allowing as application of income. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an application u/s. 154 of the Act was filed before the CPC. The intimation was amended by allowing the cost of asset as an application of income