“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

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Satyam Educational Trust, Silvasa

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

ITA 167/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and in ITA No. 167/Srt/2023, the revenue has filed appeal against deleting the disallowance of application of income under Section 11 and 13 of the ITA No.166 & 167/Srt/2023 ITO Vs Satyam Educational Trust Act of Rs. 30,52,808/- in assessment order ... that in response to various notices, the assessee neither explained the fact nor furnished any documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed the application of income under Section 11 and 13 of Rs.30,52,808/-. 12. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Satyam Educational Trust, Silvasa

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

ITA 166/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1946/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 143ASection 144Section 153A

source of such expenditure available and therefore, making the addition of the above sum once again, is taxing sources and application of income both, and also amounts to double addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the addition of ₹260369/- made

Naresh Manakchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1945/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 143ASection 144Section 153A

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 427/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

case and in law, the learned A.O. erred and not justified in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 5220388 as an application of income. The said deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, be kindly allowed. 5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... learned A.O. erred and not justified in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 13008220 as an application of income. The said deduction as claimed in the return, therefore, kindly allowed. 6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 425/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 423/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

M/S M.P. Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 422/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

Breach Candy Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT (E) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1719/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbreach Candy Hospital Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, 60A, Bhulabhai Exemption Ward (1)(1) Desai Road, Cumballa Hill 506, 5Th Floor, Piramal S.O, Mumbai – 400026 Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatb0214D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Shri Fenil Bhat Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 21.03.2023 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Via) 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Denying The Claim Of The Appellant For Grant Of Exemption Under Section 10(23Cx(Via) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Following The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Bombay High Court To Grant Exemption Under Section 10(23Cxvia) Pursuant To Ad-Interim Relief Granted To The Appellant Vide Order Dated 17 January 2011. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Followed Directions Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court. Provision For Gratuity To Be Treated As ‘Application Of Income’

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhatFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

learned CIT(A) ought to have followed directions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Provision for gratuity to be treated as ‘application of income’ P a g e | 2 Breach Candy Hospital Trust Vs. ITO Exemption Ward (1)(1) 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action ... learned AO of not considering the provision for gratuity of Rs.6,14,623 as an application of income. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that only the amount of Rs.6,14,623 has been claimed as application of income which comprises of Rs2,38,387 relating

Sarswati Vidhya Pratishthan M.P, Bhupal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 392/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 on 28.12.2017 thereby the expenditure of Rs.98,45,124/- on account of Vaman Drishti Shivir has been disallowed as application of income for charitable purpose. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assesse filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before the Tribunal ... recurring nature therefore, the said expenditure cannot Page 6 of 25 Sarswati Vidhya Partishthan M.P. Page 7 of 25 be regarded as application of income for charitable purpose as provided u/s 11(1) of the Act. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered

Sher-E- Kashmir Collage of Education ( Unit of ) Pir Panchal Education Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 190/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

section 12 of the Act and not section 10. These provisions are contradictory to each other. Section 13(1)(c) applies to application of income and property to specified persons. Sections 13(2)(a), 13(2)(b), 13(2)(d) and 13(2)(g) govern the provisions of lending, property

Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra, Padampua vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Kailash Heights

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

made by the assessee trust on the premises that the said trust had already claimed capital expenditure on such asset as application of Income while computing its income. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please ... assessment order. Assessing Officer observed as given below:- "There is no provision in the Act with regard to trusts which allows application of income on notional basis. In fact section 11 is so worded that it talks of only exempting an income from a property held under trust subject

Dy CIT-1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

repayment to the assessee is in the nature of the the repayment to the assessee is in the nature of the application of income for repayment of loans. pplication of income for repayment of loans. 5. We are alive to the fact that the income in question cannot ... assets and what is received by the the assets and what is received by the assessee is an assessee is an application of income earned by the said owner. On the face of application of income earned by the said owner. On the face of application of income earned

M/S the Maharashtra State Co. Op Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-1(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3878/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sushil LakhaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 364/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 363 & 364/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Shree Digamber Jain Mandir Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward-01, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGTS 7441 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.), Shri Ruchika Sogani (Adv.) jk

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

action of Id. AO in not allowing benefit of deduction u/s 11 & 12 of the Income tax Act and thereby not allowing application of income of Rs. 7,38,768/-. The action of Id. CIT-(A) is unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please

Shri Chandraprabh Charitable Sanstha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 363/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 57

Sahachari Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Exemption, New Delhi

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

ITA 534/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 11Section 12Section 263

professional training and rehabilitating them;” 5. Return for the year under consideration was filed electronically on 30.10.2017 declaring NIL income after claiming of application of income u/s 11 of the Act. Return was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment was completed accepting the returned income of the assessee vide order ... clause (v) or sub-clause (VI) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation or thereafter." 14. The bone of contention is the donations made to Life Trust

Infoparks Kerala, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

inasmuch as the cost of the capital assets, on which the same stands claimed, had already been allowed in full by way of application of income on the deployment of funds on their acquisition. The same, though a part of the statute w.e.f. AY 2015-2016 [s.11(6)] inasmuch ... already ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT claimed and been allowed exemption u/s. 11(1) on application of income on the cost of relevant capital assets. This is as s. 11(6) is operative only AY 2015-16 onwards. 4.8 We decide accordingly

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)