← 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

Sitaram Bhartia Institute Science & Research, Kolkata vs. D.C.I., Exemption, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1264/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

fulfillment of other condition in that section, is to be taken on the gross receipt of the trust before deducting any sum towards application of income. In other words, the application of income has to be taken into account from the said gross receipts for the purpose of accumulation u/s11

M A J Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 988/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 250

case. 10. The lower authorities ought to have appreciated that the lease deposit payment of Rs.25,00,000/- is allowable as application of income even though the same is capital expenditure on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The lower authorities ought to have taken note that ... case of trust its income is computed by allowing deduction of application of income which consists of both capital and revenue expenditure and thus, there is no occasion to exclude the payment of lease deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. The lower

The South India Club, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 2(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly

ITA 354/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

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

pending, the assessee filed return of income for the Asst. Year 2018-19 on 30/03/2019. In the return, the assessee had claimed application of income for charitable purpose for Rs.6,01,35,500/-. As per the information available on record, the assessee has utilized on Revenue account of Rs.72 ... pending. the appellant filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 30.03.2019. In this Return, the appellant had claimed application of income for charitable purposes of Rs.6,01,35,500/- which comprised of amount applied during the previous year Revenue Account Rs. 72,224/-, amount applied during

Pratap Chandra Sau Welfare Trust, Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 375/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

return of income during the year under the status of AOP and not as charitable trust. The assessee claimed all these expenses as application of income in the Income Tax Return. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the first appellate authority

Pratap Chandra Sau Welfare Trust, Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 374/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

return of income during the year under the status of AOP and not as charitable trust. The assessee claimed all these expenses as application of income in the Income Tax Return. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the first appellate authority

M/S. Dr. M Nagaraju & Renuka Nagaraju Charitable Trust (R), Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 519/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 250(4)

appellant is not entitled to claim donation paid to the various trusts for a sum of Rs. 91,53,000 /- as the application of income u/ s 11 of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. Without prejudice to the right ... therefore the payments made to unregistered institutions by the assessee to the extent of Rs.Rs.91,53,000 cannot be regarded as application of income. The AO relied on the following decisions and made addition of Rs.91,53,000:- - CIT v. Shamnur Savithramma[2011] 11 taxmann.com

Jamnagar Area Development Authority, Jamnagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2 - Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

well as on facts in denying exemption of Rs 1,54,93,074/- claimed u/s 11(1)(a) in respect of deemed application of income and the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the same on merits.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 2349/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 33,84,990/- claimed u/s 11 of the Act as application of income of the appellant Trust. 3. That on facts, and in law, the deduction ought to have been allowed as prayed for. 4. The appellant craves

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 2311/AHD/2017[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 33,84,990/- claimed u/s 11 of the Act as application of income of the appellant Trust. 3. That on facts, and in law, the deduction ought to have been allowed as prayed for. 4. The appellant craves

Tapovan Education Trust, Vadodara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 2310/AHD/2017[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 33,84,990/- claimed u/s 11 of the Act as application of income of the appellant Trust. 3. That on facts, and in law, the deduction ought to have been allowed as prayed for. 4. The appellant craves

Dharma Naidu Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT-Exemptions, Chennai Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 497/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 497/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Dharma Naidu Educational Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of & Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), No.24, Chengalvarayan Street, Chennai Circle, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 030. [Pan: Aaatd 2601E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 : 17.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

cannot lead to levy of tax. The Levy of tax, by the scheme of the Act, was to be supported by inadequacy of application of Income and failure to file Form No.10 by the Appellant. 3. The Assessing officer of the Rectification Order was wrong in levying tax solely ... ground of charging/claiming of depreciation without looking in to, or considering the facts/aspects of application of income for the said year. 4. The Assessing officer of the Rectification Order, has grossly erred in refusing to rectify the assessment order /intimation u/s 143(1), when all the relevant and required facts

Gyudmed Tantric University Society, Mysuru vs. Income-Tax, Exemptions Ward, Mysore

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

ITA 939/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri G Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)

form of fixed deposits. The assessee has earned interest Page 2 of 5 income against such fixed deposits, which was claimed as application of income. As such, the amount of interest received by the assessee was transferred to the Members fund account. However, the AO was of the view that ... income does not represent the charitable activity for which the trust was established. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction treating as application of income u/s 11 of the Act. 4. Besides the above, the AO also found that the impugned interest expenses/application was subject to the provision

Hislop College Alumni Association, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 148/NAG/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri J.M. RanadeFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

expenses on religious objectives, details of income from profits and gains of business, details of provisions of trust deed / MoA for transfer or application of income for any purpose other than charitable purposes etc.. The information / details were called for under the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause

DCIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Grameen Services, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 104/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 25

Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,35,58,090/- by denying the claim for application of income and exemption u/s 11 on account of infringement of section 13(2)(b) r.w.s 13(3) of the Act. 10. Aggrieved, the assessee went

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

been, for both the years, assessed, as claimed, at the gross receipt; the only adjustment made on processing being the denial of application of income u/s. 11(1)(a), claimed at Rs.69.21 lakhs and Rs.100.62 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively, and which has led to the impugned demands ... rather a deficit for both the years, so that there was no question of claiming, as being alleged, exemption on account of application of income. In fact, he would continue, the returns for AY 2016-17 onwards, filed in ITR 5, have been processed

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

been, for both the years, assessed, as claimed, at the gross receipt; the only adjustment made on processing being the denial of application of income u/s. 11(1)(a), claimed at Rs.69.21 lakhs and Rs.100.62 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively, and which has led to the impugned demands ... rather a deficit for both the years, so that there was no question of claiming, as being alleged, exemption on account of application of income. In fact, he would continue, the returns for AY 2016-17 onwards, filed in ITR 5, have been processed

Centre for E-Governance, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, (Exemptions), Bangalore

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

ITA 512/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

passed the order u/s.154 and has stated that if the original appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed granting the benefit of application of income u/s. Section 11 by the ld. CIT(A), this benefit u/s. 11(2) would also be allowed. Now original assessment order passed u/se143

Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Trust, Khambhat vs. The ITO, Ward (Exemption), Vadodara

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

ITA 227/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Income-Tax Officer, Trust, Ward (Exemption), 1, Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana, Vadodara Opp. Bus Stand, Khambhat, Gujarat-388620 Pan : Aaatd 2007 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 250

capital expenditure of Rs.99,12,380/-. Therefore your appellant prays your honour to allow the capital expenditure of Rs.99,12,380/- as application of income.” 3. At the outset, it was stated that there was a solitary issue in the present appeal, being the allowance of claim of exemption

Satish Babu Kannan, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

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

ITA 370/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 195

Bengaluru dated 12.12.2022.. 2. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee made arguments that the AO has made additions of application of income and not assessed the income on the following issues (i) Payment to non- resident u/s.195 of the Act of Rs.19,108/-, (ii) Payment of credit

Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur vs. DCIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

facts. 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 24,43,79,000/- on account of application of income on account of payment made to other departments/ institutions. The addition so sustained is bad in law and bad on fact ... erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,00,10,000/- on account of repayment of loan to HUDCO claimed as application of income. 8. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing application of income of Rs. 14,22,45,000/- claimed on account of payment of Security