“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

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 284/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

Section 40A(9)

Rs.342.42 lacs on account of donation to educational institutions is an allowable expenditure under corporate social responsibility even though it is only application of income? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ITAT is justified the disallowance of contract charges of Rs.6

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. ACIT., Circle- 1, Khammam

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 283/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)

Section 40A(9)

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

assessee submits that assessee is having registration under section 12A/AB and approval under section 80G(5) and there is no impasses for allowing application of income / exemption under section 11 of the Act and non-filing / uploading Form-10B is the only ground for denial of exemption under section ... condonation of delay by ld. CIT(A) in upload of such Form 10B, the lower authorities have no option except to deny application of income under section 11 of Income Tax Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders

Mahansaria Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2158/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

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

elaborated in the Explanatory Notes to the Finance Bill 2014 (CBDT Circular No.1/2015 dated 21.01.2015) which is reproduced below:- "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 ... 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

Health Foundation & Research Centre, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that the audit was completed in time, nor has he pointed out any defect in the application of income or the nature of activities of the trust. The only ground for denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 was the belated filing

Cricketmaharashtra@Yahoo.Com, Pune vs. ACIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1724/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

under consideration. 12. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deficit claim of Rs.350,87,17,535 in respect of application of income without appreciating that the said action is justified on facts and in law. 13. The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend and delete

ACIT, Exemption Circle, Ranchi vs. M/S Sitwanto Devi Mahila Kalyan Sansthan, Jamshedpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 278/RAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR

course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had called for the details of the various expenses, which have been claimed by the assessee as “application of income”. The ld CIT DR specifically drew our attention to the advertisement expenses to an extent of Rs.2,08,90,578/-. It was the submission

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. National Institute of Opthalmology, Pune

In the result both revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 423/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.423/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of National Institute Of Income Tax (Exemption), Opthalmology, Pune Vs. 1187/30 Shivajinagar, Off Ghole Road, Near Phule Museum, Pune-411005 Pan-Aaatn2580Q

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas S. Munde

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

case, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee, while claiming exemption uls. 11 of the Act had bifurcated the application of Income under different heads such as revenue expenditure, capital expenditure, and accumulation of Income which shows the Intention of assessee to claim benefit ... application vide order dated 12.07.2019 because the assessee claimed the exemption u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act by claiming it the application of income u/s 11. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and provided requisite details alongwith the proof of claiming the exemption

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for these two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1328/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Praveena S., CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: S/Shri Satish Mody, Advocate & Kunjan Gandhi, CA

Section 13(3)

therefore there is a clear-cut violation of section 13(1))(c) of the Act. Therefore, he held that there is an application of income for the benefit of the ‘specified person’ and therefore total income of the assessee was denied benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act. Accordingly

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for these two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Praveena S., CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: S/Shri Satish Mody, Advocate & Kunjan Gandhi, CA

Section 13(3)

Aamir Khan Production Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 2612/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 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 ... 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

Leuva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust Ode, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1082/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Na Leuva Patidar Samaj Seva Trust Ode Cit(Exemption) C/O. Divyan Shah & Co., Cas. Vs. Vejalpur 201, 2Nd Floor, Devashish Complex Ahmedabad. Nr.Regenta Central Atarim Hotel Off Cg Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aabtl 8344 D (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar : Shri Durga Dutt, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, AR

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

fundamental misapplication of the binding precedent. The assessee’s case was never examined through the lens of dominant object, actual activity, or genuine application of income, which was the core of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s reasoning. Accordingly, the reliance placed on Dawoodi Bohara Jamat is factually distinguishable, legally ... commencement of this Act” has applied income for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. The legislative focus is clearly on “application of income,” not merely on the wording of the object clause. Furthermore, this provision is couched in the context of monitoring compliance after registration, consistent with

Ujwal Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.167 & 168/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2025-26) Ujwal Foundation Vs. Cit (Exemption) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabtu1833C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri H Srinivasulu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (E), Hyderabad Dated 11/12/2024 & 9/12/2024 Respectively Whereby The Application Of The Assessee For Grant Of Approval U/S 80G & Registration U/S 12Ab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Were Rejected. In The Appeal Against The Rejection Of Application For Registration U/S 12Ab In Ita No.168/Hyd/2025, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

expenditure account and submitted that when no income during the year under consideration, then there is no question of violation for non- application of income for charitable purpose. He has further submitted that the assessee trust has incurred the expenditure on administration of the trust being payment to the auditors

Ujwal Foundation, Hyderabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/HYD/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri H Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 292/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate &For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 40a

question of payment of privilege fee, special privilege fee by APBCL to state government do not arise, consequently treatment of the same as application of income in hands of appellant or disallowance of same u/s.40a(iib). Further, it is stated that there is no exclusive levy of privilege ... that privilege fee is levied on all retailers and the amount is received directly by government hence privilege fee cannot be treated as application of income in the hands of APBCL. In this connection, it is submitted that state government has issued GO 614 dated 06.05.2005 in which the manner

Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 291/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate &For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 40a

St. Joshephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3296/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. (Pan: Aamts 3888 G) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

undisclosed income as assessed vide the search assessment order u/s 153A of the Act dated 29-09-2021, without giving effect to the application of income as claimed u/s 11 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the Ld. AO erred in levying penalty ... same income. B) Furthermore, the Learned AO has made additions of INR 1,26,75,000/- without giving effect to the application of income in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect t of the voluntary contributions

St. Josephs Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. Dcot. Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3295/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

St. Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

ITA 3294/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3293 & 3294/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Educational Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aamts 3888 G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3295 To 3297/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2018-19 To 2020-21 St. Joseph'S Institute Of Science & Technology Trust, 56-C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. V. Balaji, Ca & Mr. K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate By Virtual प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2025 :: 2 ::

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A

St.Josephs Educational Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-193), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3293/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. V. Balaji, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 271A