← 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

Pravin Kumar, Mumbai vs. Sadhu Vaswani Mission Bombay, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3613/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12A

without appreciating the fact that no supporting evidences has been provided to prove that the cost of such assets has been claimed as application of income for the year?" I.T.A. No. 3613/Mum/2024 2 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... fact that as per Section 11(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the acquisition of any asset has been claimed as an application of income in any previous year, no deduction or allowance for depreciation in respect to that asset would be allowable ?” 3. None appeared on behalf

Dr. B.G. Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.680/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dr. B. G. Memorial Trust..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 6/1, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue Rabindra Sarovar, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aaatd5235A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exempt, Kolkata...........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Registered As A Charitable Institution U/S 12 Of The Act. The Assessee Claimed Deduction Of Income Being A Charitable Institution U/S 11 Of The Act. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Cit(Exemption) Vide Order Dated 22.02.2016 U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Act Has Withdrawn & Cancelled Registration Granted Earlier To The Assessee-Trust. In View Of The Said Cancellation Of Registration, The

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 250Section 40Section 40A

upon the provisions of section 11 of the Act to submit that the donation to the charitable institutions was to be treated as application of income. The ld. counsel has invited our attention to page 44 of the paper-book, whereby, at point no.25, the Assessing Officer asked

Gobindram Chandramani Vivek, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation(supra) , in our humble considered view is not correct, as it was in context of computing firstly, application of income for charitable purposes by claiming , inter-alia, deduction of entire cost of capital assets u/s. 11 from the income derived from property held under trust ... itself with ‘Income which do not form part of total income’. This claim of deduction towards the cost of capital assets acquired as application of income u/s 11 , as well simultaneously computing income of charitable trust or institutions in commercial parlance after claiming deduction of depreciation expenses on such capital

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Mahindra International School Academy, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 980/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)

matter pertains to A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee was entitled to get the depreciation of fixed assets which cannot be termed as application of income, the prospective amendment in this regard is applicable from A.Y.2016-17 only. This matter has been deliberated upon by the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in favour

Maa Saraswati Research and Development Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1304/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: the date of hearing.”

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

circumstances of the case, Ld. AO, CPC, has erred in disallowing exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) of I.T. Act, 1961, towards application of income at Rs. 3,01.50.738/-as per Audited Accounts. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce or amend any ground or grounds

Raath Vidyapeeth, Alwar vs. ITO (Exmp.), Ward-Alwar, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 338/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 251

check and verify as to whether assets on which depreciation of Rs.53,40,017/- has been claimed has been allowed as application of income in the previous year or not ignoring that he has no power to set aside an issue ... NFAC in directing the AO to check and verify as to whether Assets on which depreciation has been claimed has been allowed as application of income in the previous year or not. 2.2 In this regard it has been pointed out by ld AR that CIT(A), NFAC

Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh vs. ITO, Rajgarh

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 100/IND/2024[A Y 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Nirvindhya Shiksha Avam Income-Tax Officer, Sanskriti Prachar Samiti, Rajgarh Biaora, C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37, Trade Centre, Vs. 18,South Tukoganj, Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaan8371J Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2024

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(1)

observed that the assessee has claimed ‘depreciation’ of Rs. 52,49,523/- as revenue expenditure even while claiming cost of assets as ‘application of income’ u/s 11/12. When the AO show- caused assessee on this issue, the assessee submitted a categorical reply that depreciation had been claimed only on those ... assets whose cost was not claimed previously as ‘application of income’. However, the AO rejected such submission of assessee and finally, while passing assessment-order u/s 143(3) on 28.12.2019, disallowed depreciation claim of Rs. 52,49,523/-. The AO, however, determined total income

Mahajan Awas Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1102/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1102/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : N.A. Mahajan Awas Foundation The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Fp No.300/23, Kanya Anandnagar-Prahaladnagar Gurukul, Road V/S. Near St.Ann’S School Ahmedabad – 380 015 Nr.Hira Jain Society Ramnagar, Sabarmati Ahmedabad – 380 005 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaocm 0161 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deven Kapadia, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Mahajan Awas Foundation Against The Order Dated 28.03.2024 Passed By The Cit (Exemption), Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”), Rejecting The Assessee’S Application For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Mahajan Awas Foundation Vs. The Cit (E)

For Appellant: Shri Deven Kapadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)

specific religious group. 5.2. At the stage of registration and approval, it is not necessary for the Ld.CIT(E) to assess the application of income or how the funds will be Mahajan Awas Foundation vs. The CIT (E) 5 utilized in future years. The focus should be on whether

M/S. Sarvadeivatha Education Trust(Regd), Kodagu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward, Mysore

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

ITA 1396/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

For Respondent: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia
Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(B)Section 12ASection 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 249

06/11/2022 within the time allowed u/s. 139(4A) of the act declaring total income of Rs.1,78,148/-, being the shortfall in application of income during the year under consideration. It is submitted that, the assessee filed form 10B i.e. audit report, on 05/11/2022, before filing the return of income

The Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemtion Circle, Pune

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

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

portal by the auditors of the assessee trust on 20-01-2020. Intimation under section 143 (1) denying the claim of the application of income was issued by CPC, Bengaluru on 08-02-2020. Therefore, what can be seen is that as on the date on which the intimation/order under ... above judicial precedents cited above and the assessee’s set of facts, we are of the considered view that the claim of application of income cannot be denied to the assessee only on the ground that the assessee/the auditor of the assessee omitted to file form 10 B (auditor

Chevalier P J Cherian Arts and Cultural Foundation, Ashok Nagar vs. Ddi Exemptions, Chennai

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

ITA 702/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.702/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2021-22 Chevalier Pj Cherian Arts & The Ddi (Exemptions), Cultural Foundation, Vs. Chennai. 45, First Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600083. [Pan: Aaaac 8002B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri P. Ravichandran, Ca ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1060188727(1), Dated 29.01.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Orders Of The Assessing Officer & The First Appellate Authority Are Contrary To Law. 2. The Denial Of Exemption Under Section 11 To The Extent Of :- 2 -: Rs.16,60,000/- Is Contrary To Law When The Appellant Had Filed Form 10 Along With The Necessary Resolution For Accumulation Of Income. 3. The Denial Of Exemption By The First Appellate Authority On The Grounds That The Audit Report In Form 1Ob Was Incomplete Is Erroneous & In Any Case The Appellant Ought To Have Been Given An Opportunity To Rebut & Explain The Incompleteness. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Raise Additional Grounds.”

For Appellant: Shri P. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Form No.10B as it claims to have fulfilled the conditions required. However, on perusal of Form No. 10B in column No. 6 of Application of Income for Charitable or Religious purposes, the appellant has not mentioned the amount invested or deposited in-the manner laid down in section

Deputy Commissioner (Exemptions), Chennai, Income Tax vs. Hindustan Institute of Technology and Science, Chennai

ITA 611/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 611/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. Hindustan Institute Of Technology & Science, 40, Gst Road, St Thomas Mount, Chennai - 600 016. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaath-6508-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By Shri R. Venkatesh, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 04.09.2024 Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi (Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059507197(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai For The

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 3(1)

been filed by the assesee. The extract of computation of Income as per Section 143(3) is given below: Gross receipts 85% thereof Application of Income 1. Capital Rs. 6,16,57,081 2. Revenue Rs.10,81,87,832 Less: Form 10 filed Rs.22,47,53,179 Rs.19 ... record which is evident from the notings that "On perusal of the Annexure to Return of Income i.e. "Statement of income showing the application of income and Donation" the assessee has furnished the sources of income, application of income, additions to fixed assets and short fall in application of income

The Icfai Society, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 661/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 The Icfai Society, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaajt0214B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)

return of income. While computing the total income the assessing officer stated that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished information/ evidence on application of income towards the objectives of the assessee society. As per the Aims and objectives mentioned in MOA, the activities of the society are within ... them as those dealing with the stage of considering applications for approval or registration and other as those dealing with application of income or receipts of the trust. In respect of the latter, this court was of the opinion that the question of application of income or profits could arise

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle, Chennai, Income Tax Department vs. The Indian Institute of Engineering Technology, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 679/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

depreciation of Rs.97,90,776/- on addition to fixed assets stating that the assessee has already claimed the acquisition of assets as application of income during the respective year and computed the income of the trust as under : Excess of Income over expenditure 4,88,55,229 Add: Honorarium ... been received back during the A Y 2012-13. It is pertinent to note that the said amount has never been claimed as application of Income of the trust in any of the :- 17 -: assessment years. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that initially when the assessee was constructing

M/S. Susila Educational Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1, Chennai

Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of exemption u/s

ITA 1095/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee trust, noted that the assessee trust has declared income from aggregate receipts excluding voluntary contribution of Rs.79,92,658/- and after application of income of Rs.68,60,701/- balance of Rs.79,92,658/- was claimed as exempt u/s.11, resultant total income was declared at `nil'. The AO noted that

Jnanavaahini Shikshana Samsthe Mysore, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward, Mysuru

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

ITA 899/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Keshav Dubeyjnanavaahini Shikshana Samsthe Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-Mysuru Near Big Banyan Tree Nh-212, T Narsipura Road, Alnahalli, Mysuru, Vs. Karnataka Pan – Aabtj5183A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri. Neeraj S Mitran, CAFor Respondent: Sri. V. Parithivel, JCIT
Section 11(1)Section 234Section 250Section 253(5)Section 68

Loans and Assets purchase as Application. 3.1 The learned AO should have allowed the capital expenditure incurred by the trust as an application of income. 3.2 In the alternatively, the learned AO should have reduced the capital expenditure by net off borrowings made during the year and allowed ... capital expenditure as application of income. 4. Statutory Deduction u/s 11(1). 4.1 The learned AO should have allowed deduction of 15% on gross receipts of the trust i.e. before deducting any of the expenditure. 5. Additions u/s 68 and invoking Sec 115BBE. 5.1 The learned AO having observed that

Abhinava Bharathi Shikshana Trust R, Mandya vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Mysore

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

ITA 802/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

learned AR submitted that the question whether the cost of assets on which the depreciation is claimed has been claimed as application of income at the time of purchase, needs examination by the AO and requested that the matter may be restored to the files ... funds in the earlier years. This fact needs to be examined by the AO i.e., whether assessee had claimed cost of asset as application of income in years in which assets were acquired and same was allowed. For examination of this issue, the matter is restored to the files

Abhinava Bharathi Shikshana Trust R, Mandya vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Mysore

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

ITA 801/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

learned AR submitted that the question whether the cost of assets on which the depreciation is claimed has been claimed as application of income at the time of purchase, needs examination by the AO and requested that the matter may be restored to the files ... funds in the earlier years. This fact needs to be examined by the AO i.e., whether assessee had claimed cost of asset as application of income in years in which assets were acquired and same was allowed. For examination of this issue, the matter is restored to the files

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle-1, (Exemptions), Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissioner Of Bangalore Development Authority, Income Tax, Circle-1, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark (Exemptions), Bengaluru Vs. West, Seshadripuram S.O., Bangalore North, Bangalore-560020 Pan – Aaalb0060D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Sri. D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Dated 8.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Statutory Body Under The Government Of Karnataka & They Are Regular In Filing Their Return Of Income. The Assessee Also Got Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act W.E.F. 1.04.2003. During The Assessment Year 2008-09, The Assessee Filed Their Original Return Of Income On 25.09.2008 & Claimed Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Assessee Also Filed The Audit Report Alongwith The Return Of Income. The Return Was Processed & The Ao Accepted The Same. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice Was Issued On Various Dates & The Assessee Also Appeared & Filed Their

For Appellant: Sri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Sri. D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147

case; II. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of assessee for repayment of loan borrowed from Bank as application of income in the current financial year by ignoring the fact that the assessee itself had admitted that the capital expenditure on infrastructure project for which the loan ... Madras), the AO disallowed the claim of the assessee regarding repayment of loan borrowed for construction of commercial complex as "application of income" for charitable purpose on the ground that construction of multi storeyed commercial complex was not one of the objects of the trust and as such, the expenditure

ACIT., (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. The Yacht Club of Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA Aluru V Sai Sudha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)

income filed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the CPC denied the application of income claimed under section 11 of the Act, without offering any reason or following the procedure prescribed under proviso to section ... same till 31/05/2021, in view of the prevailing Covid pandemic, is bad and on that ground directed the learned Assessing Officer to allow application of income towards the objects of assessee within the provisions of section 11 of the Act. 4. Hence the aggrieved Revenue filed this appeal contending that