← 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

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

assessee Trust. The AO had also called upon the assessee to explain ‘as to why’ depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be disallowed, because, the assessee Trust has claimed cost of asset purchased as application of income in the year ... agreement between the parties. The assessee further submitted that depreciation on fixed assets, the cost of which has been treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1636/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

assessee Trust. The AO had also called upon the assessee to explain ‘as to why’ depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be disallowed, because, the assessee Trust has claimed cost of asset purchased as application of income in the year ... agreement between the parties. The assessee further submitted that depreciation on fixed assets, the cost of which has been treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

assessee Trust. The AO had also called upon the assessee to explain ‘as to why’ depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be disallowed, because, the assessee Trust has claimed cost of asset purchased as application of income in the year ... agreement between the parties. The assessee further submitted that depreciation on fixed assets, the cost of which has been treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

assessee Trust. The AO had also called upon the assessee to explain ‘as to why’ depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be disallowed, because, the assessee Trust has claimed cost of asset purchased as application of income in the year ... agreement between the parties. The assessee further submitted that depreciation on fixed assets, the cost of which has been treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

assessee Trust. The AO had also called upon the assessee to explain ‘as to why’ depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be disallowed, because, the assessee Trust has claimed cost of asset purchased as application of income in the year ... agreement between the parties. The assessee further submitted that depreciation on fixed assets, the cost of which has been treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

assessee Trust. The AO had also called upon the assessee to explain ‘as to why’ depreciation on fixed assets claimed as application of income u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, cannot be disallowed, because, the assessee Trust has claimed cost of asset purchased as application of income in the year ... agreement between the parties. The assessee further submitted that depreciation on fixed assets, the cost of which has been treated as application of income for charitable purpose u/s.11(1)(a) of the Act, is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind, Mumbai City vs. D.C.I.T. (Exemption)-II(1) Mum, Mumbai City

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2382/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OMPRAKASH KANT,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Appellant had claimed ITANo.2382/Mum/2023 (AssessmentYear:2015-16) deprecation in respect of the assets the cost of acquisition of which was not claimed as application of income during the relevant previous year or any other previous years. However, the Assessing Officer denied deduction for depreciation claimed by the Appellant. The Assessing ... Appellant had purchased the assets under consideration either from the funds accumulated in terms of Section 11(2) or from the 15% deemed application of income and in both the said cases it can be said that the Appellant had claimed cost of the asset as application of income. Thus

Sant Shankar Maharaj Ashram, Amravati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/NAG/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 334/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram 01, Pimpal Khuta, Dhamangaon, Amravati-444905. Pan: Aahts0026K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Mahavir Atal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr K C Kanojiya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 250

Sant Shankar Maharaj Aashram Vs CPC, Bengaluru. 28/03/2018 showing a gross receipt of ₹4,84,04,269/- and with a claim of application of income on object ₹4,14,18,212/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27/03/2019. The Ld. CPC while processing

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ballari vs. H R Gaviappa and Co, Ballari

ITA 825/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, A.R
Section 250Section 37(1)

depending on the need for rehabilitation. 7.8.15. In our view, contributing 15% to SPV account on account of Category 'B', would be application of income, and therefore, should be considered as expenditure incurred for carrying out its business activity. This we hold so, for the reason that, contributions determined ... treated as an expenditure incurred by assessee for purposes of business. 7.10.2. On the contrary, Ld.CIT DR submitted that it is an application of income and therefore has to be disallowed in the hands of assessee. He submitted that Ld.AO in support of disallowing the claim of expenditure relied

Pandit Nathu Ram Gaur Charitable Trust, Khondli Krishna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, 2(4), Civic Centre

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the reasons, namely, reduction in profit due to application of Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (“ICDS”); excess claim of exemption of dividend income; large increase in unsecured loans during the year; large refund claimed out of advance tax. During the course of assessment

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

Appellant, vide letter dated 29/11/2018, submitted that the Appellant had not claimed the cost of fixed assets as an application of income in any of the earlier years and therefore, the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act were not applicable to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Appellant was entitled ... failed to bring on record relevant documents/details to show that the Appellant had not claimed the cost of fixed assets as an application of income in any of the earlier years, the Appellant had placed on record the computation of income along with financial statements for Assessment Year

Ai-Jadeed Social Welfare Association, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 111/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteal-Jadeed Social Welfare Vs Ito, Ward-Exemption, Association, At Post Pune. Hangarga, Nal, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad-413602 Pan: Aabta 3186 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitin Rander, Ca Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/03/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 28.11.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Cannot Be Condoned. The Appellant Prays That The Delay Be Condoned & Appeal Be Taken Up For Hearing. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao & Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Held That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered U/Sec. 12A & U/Sec. 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) & Accordingly, Eligible For Claim Of Exemption U/Sec. 11 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Erred In Disallowing The Claim Of Rs. 86,18,109/- Towards Application Of Income U/Sec. 11 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Deciding The Issue On Merits & Not Allowing The Application Of Income On Objects Of The Trust U/Sec. 11 Of Rs. 86,18,109/- & Thereby Treating The Same As Income Of The Appellant. Al-Jadeed Social Welfare Association 5. Without Prejudice To Above Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Authorities Erred In Not Allowing The Income Of The Assessee, Being An Educational Institution Substantially Financed By State Government, Is Eligible For Exemption U/Sec. 10(23C)(Iiiab) Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Rander, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 80G

circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the claim of Rs. 86,18,109/- towards application of income u/sec. 11 of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred ... deciding the issue on merits and not allowing the application of income on objects of the Trust u/sec. 11 of Rs. 86,18,109/- and thereby treating the same as income of the appellant. Al-Jadeed Social Welfare Association 5. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, the ld. Authorities

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same ... assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 16,20,365/- in AY 2013-14 and Rs. 18,43,085/- in AY 2014-15 as application of income. The AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not allowed the deduction of the said depreciation as an expense to be deducted from

Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Panipat vs. ITO(E), Ambala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7873/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Vs. Ambala, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Bc Haryana - 122001 Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (Pan: Aaats4962K) Haryana – 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

Assessing Officer, accumulation of income in excess of 15% of the income is allowed subject to certain conditions. The AO noticed that the application of income fall short of benchmark of 85% at Rs. 53,89,038/-. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain as to why the benefit ... favour of the assessee and further question whether adjustment of deficit of current year against the income of subsequent year would amount to application of income of the trust for charitable purposes in the subsequent year within the meaning of section 11(1)(a) of the Act in favour

Sanganeria Foundations for Health & Education, New Delhi vs. CIT, Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 703/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Sanganeria Foundations For Vs. Cit, Exemption Health & Education, New Delhi 304, Avg Bhawan, M-3, Ward Exemption 2(1), Connaught Circus, Civic Centre, New Delhi – 110 001 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Aadts8978E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

assessee utilized Rs. 65,00,001/- as donation to two other trusts, which shall not be treated as application of income as per explanation to section 11(2), r.w.s. 11(3) of the Act. During the year under consideration, as per the details of amount accumulated/set apart within meaning ... donations given out of accumulated funds u/s. 11(2) of the Act of earlier previous years are not allowable as application of income for charitable or religious purposes and the same shall be deemed to be income of the assessee of the previous year 2016-17, hence

Mayank Kishor Tejura, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above

ITA 3777/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Us In The Following Manner:- 1.Overseas Impex Pvt. Ltd (Oipl) Was A Tenant Of A Residential Flat Being Flat No. 15, 4Th Floor, Park View Building, Little Gibbs Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400 006 Since 1965. The Company Had Been The Tenant By Way Of Leave & License Agreement Dated 1-5-1965 Between Mr. Amrit Sagar Puri (Landlord) & The Company (Tenant).

Section 143(3)Section 54F

capital gains’ entirely in the hand of the company and any amount given to the assessee out of such taxable income amounts to application of income by the company.  Secondly, the capital gains for the entire compensation received is taxable in the hands of the company OIPL ... Such a claim is allowable or not the issue before us, because it is not a cost incurred on tenancy right albeit its application of income. Since, it is not the subject matter of issue before us therefore, we are refraining to go on this issue. 18 Mayank Kishor Tejura

Ashwini Sahakari Rungnalaya & Research Center, Solapur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), Pune

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

held under Trust or any other Legal Obligation, (vii) From the objectives & also the Bye-Laws of the Society, the requirement of application of income for Charitable Purposes is not established or apparent. 3. Aggrieved by the aforestated cancellation/withdrawal of 12A registration, the assessee instituted this appeal ... return of income filed for the respective assessment years the appellant claimed double deduction against such capital expansion i.e. once as an application of income when expanded and then as depreciation thereon. So, the extraneous profits generated from commercial operations were swept out by claiming double deduction

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

that it is income by definition, though exempt u/s. 11(1)(d)). It is for this reason that capital expenditure is equally an application of income, entitling exemption u/s. 11(1) on income derived from property held under trust (Tiruppani Trust v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 636 (SC)). The assessee

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

impugned sum as part of income derived from property held under trust. He computes exemption u/s. 11(1)(a), i.e., on account of application of income, accordingly, at Rs.54.22 lakhs. The assessee, before the ld. CIT(A) objects thereto, stating as: (a) though depreciation (Rs.24.47 lakhs) has rightly not been ... matter, as follows: (a) The assessee claims carry forward of excess expenditure (over income), at Rs. 1842.42 lakhs, also describing it as excess application of income – which is a 7 Carmel Convent v. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) contradiction in terms. As it appears to us, the assessee