← 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

ACIT (E), Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, Delhi

ITA 6282/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6282/Del/2017, A.Y. 2014-15 Acit(E), Vs. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, Circle-2(1), B N-9, Shalimar Bagh New Delhi (East), Delhi-110088 Pan : Aaaan6370R Appellant Respondent

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

depreciation as the entire expenditure for the purchase of capital assets is allowed as a deduction and the same is treated as application of income u/s 11(1) and claiming and claiming depreciation on the same capital assets is a double deduction and is not as per law as these

DCIT, C-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40a

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Nandadevi Outdoor Leadership School India, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 979/DEL/2022[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 80G

activities are to be considered. 11. The CIT (E) has failed to appreciate that for granting the registration of 80G it is application of income which is relevant not receipt of the same. 12. That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the order

Nandadevi Outdoor Leadership School India, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 978/DEL/2022[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25Section 80G

activities are to be considered. 11. The CIT (E) has failed to appreciate that for granting the registration of 80G it is application of income which is relevant not receipt of the same. 12. That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case the order

M/S. Gopal Govardhan Goshala, Sanchore, Jalore vs. DCIT, Circle-Exemption, Jodhpur

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

ITA 189/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Gopal Goverdhan Goshala Vs The Dcit Pathmeda, Taluka Sanchore, Circle-Exemption, District- Jalore (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg 0739 J

Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 40Section 40A(3)

trust is to save the Govvansh and to provide medical relief to sick Govvansh. The assessee filed its return of income showing excess application of income of Rs.4.11 crores. The AO, however, noticed following points, which were considered by him as violation of the provisions

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Spiritual Regeneration Movement Foundation of India, New Delhi

ITA 5737/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 50C

furtherance of its charitable objectives. Out of which loans of Rs.4.75 crores were repaid and such repayment of loans was claimed as application of income. 18. During the year under consideration loan of Rs. 4.75 crores were repaid and such repayment of loan was claimed as application of income ... this context is reproduced hereunder :- Repayment of a debt incurred for charitable purposes by a charitable trust and loans advanced by educational trusts - Application of income - Section 11 of the of the Income tax Act requires 100% of the income of a charitable and religious trust to be applied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centre-Circle-6(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajiv Ratan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 1434/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cc -6(4), Vs. Shri Rajiv Rattan Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Air India Building, Vasant Vihar, Nariman Point, New Delhi - 110057 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 126/Mum/2022 (A.Y.2011-12) Shri Rajiv Rattan Vs. The Dcit, Cc -6(4), 60, 2 Nd Floor, Vasant Marg, Room No. 1925, 19 Th Floor, Vasant Vihar, Air India Building, New Delhi - 110057 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aespr3957D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra Respondent By : Meet Shah

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi MishraFor Respondent: Meet Shah
Section 153CSection 245D(4)

Therefore prima facie the case of the assessee shows that there is double taxation, once the source of income and secondly the application of income We entirely agree with the above finding of the ITAT in the order passed in the stay petition filed by M/s Surya Processed Food ... discussed how the Income Tax Settlement Commission has quantified the transaction entries belonging to the assessee were offered by the 16 applicant before Income Tax Settlement Commission. The ld. D.R has also submitted that revenue is in appeal against the order of Income Tax Settlement Commission before

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal

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

ITA 1881/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal

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

ITA 1880/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal

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

ITA 1879/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1878/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal

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

ITA 1877/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1726/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1725/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1724/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1723/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1722/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya –
Section 25l

receipts has been found to be not acceptable particularly when the assessee has been claiming all the expenditure incurred on infrastructure development as application of income. The assessee cannot have benefit of application of income when the corresponding income is ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 not offered. Since the assessee ... already claimed the application of income towards infrastructure development, the 85% of Development Charges collected by the assessee have necessarily to be treated as income. Addition: Rs.2,24,32,226 Extract from CIT(A) Order 5.1. Although in the written submissions, there is a mistake in quoting the ground numbers

Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda Vidyalaya Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT (Exemptions) III, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to

ITA 1353/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1350-1353/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S.Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda- V. The Dy. Director Of Income- Vidyalaya Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-Iii, U-6, Seventh Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Aaatj 0208 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 1Section 11(2)Section 11(6)

Trust under the provisions of Secs.11 & 12 of the Act, and claimed amounts spent for charitable purpose, including acquisition of fixed assets as application of income. The assessee had not claimed depreciation on fixed assets for all these assessment years. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee ... computing income from property held under Trust on the ground that once the assessee has claimed total amount spent for capital expenditure as application of income, then claiming depreciation on very same capital asset amounts to double deduction. Therefore, rejected revised computation filed by the assessee claiming depreciation. The assessee

Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda Vidyalaya Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT (Exemptions) III, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to

ITA 1352/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1350-1353/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S.Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda- V. The Dy. Director Of Income- Vidyalaya Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-Iii, U-6, Seventh Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Aaatj 0208 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 1Section 11(2)Section 11(6)

Trust under the provisions of Secs.11 & 12 of the Act, and claimed amounts spent for charitable purpose, including acquisition of fixed assets as application of income. The assessee had not claimed depreciation on fixed assets for all these assessment years. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee ... computing income from property held under Trust on the ground that once the assessee has claimed total amount spent for capital expenditure as application of income, then claiming depreciation on very same capital asset amounts to double deduction. Therefore, rejected revised computation filed by the assessee claiming depreciation. The assessee

Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda Vidyalaya Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT (Exemptions) III, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2010-11 to

ITA 1351/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1350-1353/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2013-14 M/S.Jaigopal Garodia Vivekananda- V. The Dy. Director Of Income- Vidyalaya Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-Iii, U-6, Seventh Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. [Pan: Aaatj 0208 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 1Section 11(2)Section 11(6)

Trust under the provisions of Secs.11 & 12 of the Act, and claimed amounts spent for charitable purpose, including acquisition of fixed assets as application of income. The assessee had not claimed depreciation on fixed assets for all these assessment years. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee ... computing income from property held under Trust on the ground that once the assessee has claimed total amount spent for capital expenditure as application of income, then claiming depreciation on very same capital asset amounts to double deduction. Therefore, rejected revised computation filed by the assessee claiming depreciation. The assessee