← 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

DCIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Ernet India, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2460/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Only depreciation on assets purchased during the financial year 2013-14 was allowed since capital expenditure for earlier years had been allowed as application of income. Income was computed at Rs.35,44,66,022/-. 7. The ld. CIT (Appeals) after incorporating the entire submissions of the assessee held that

Podar Education Sports Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals for AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 are partly allowed

ITA 66/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Kuldip Singh (Jm)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

which had held 6 Podar Education Sports Trust that provision made by the assessee of donation in its books cannot be held as application of income. He submitted that as discussed by the AO in his order, the provision of section 11 and 12 do not provide for such deduction

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(xii)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

charitable for religious purpose. Therefore, the same dividend income should have been offered as income and should be subjected to the norms of application of income (i.e. 85% of unaccumulated income should be taxed in the year). As the dividend income was excluded from the gross income, the same

ACIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, New Delhi

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

ITA 4188/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80G

deprecation as the entire expenditure for the purpose of capital assets is allowed as a deduction and the same is treated as application of income u/s 11(1) and claiming depreciation on the same capital assets is a double deduction and is not as per law as these capital assets ... section 115BBC(2)(b), therefore, AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 115BBC. 9. As regards disallowance of depreciation as application of income, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (E) vs. Indraprastha Cancer Society (2015) 53 taxmann.com

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 103/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs.17,88,62,628/- from the amount of application of income for charitable objects of the appellant trust on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that ... depreciation is allowable on the assets, even though the cost of the assets has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 or section 10(23C) of the Act and is covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the facts and circumstances of the case

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1811/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing depreciation of Rs.17,88,62,628/- from the amount of application of income for charitable objects of the appellant trust on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that ... depreciation is allowable on the assets, even though the cost of the assets has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 or section 10(23C) of the Act and is covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the facts and circumstances of the case

The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2851/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2851 & 2852/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) The Board Of Control For बिधम/ Dcit Central Circle-6(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Cricket In India Vs. Wankhede Stadium, „D‟ Road, Building, Nariman Point, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb0186A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2005- 06 & 2006-07. Ita. No.2851/Mum/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2005- 06. Ita Nos. 2851 & 2852/M/2017 A.Ys.2005-06 & 2006-07 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

recorded a finding that both the contributions to the fund and interest on benevolent fund domestic and international are to be allowed as application of income u/s 11. 15. In the alternative and without prejudice to the above the learned Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) erred in reject ... Rs.13,00,000/on account of coaching subsidy. 17. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the said expenditure “as application of income for the object of the appellant without appreciating that the same is entirely in pursuance of the objects of the appellant. 18. Strictly

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 578/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

further that there is no direction or finding in the order of this Tribunal regarding excess of application over income. The assessee relied upon number of judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal. The assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) contended that the issue is squarely covered in its favour by the decision ... excess of expenditure incurred over the income of earlier years against the income of later year will amount to application of income of such later year. Page 5 of 10 ITA Nos. 577 & 578/Bang/2021 This was considered by the co-ordinate Bench in case of DCIT vs. Manipal Academy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

further that there is no direction or finding in the order of this Tribunal regarding excess of application over income. The assessee relied upon number of judicial pronouncements of this Tribunal. The assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) contended that the issue is squarely covered in its favour by the decision ... excess of expenditure incurred over the income of earlier years against the income of later year will amount to application of income of such later year. Page 5 of 10 ITA Nos. 577 & 578/Bang/2021 This was considered by the co-ordinate Bench in case of DCIT vs. Manipal Academy

M/S. Sri Krishnadevaraya Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 257/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 153A

order of the Ld. AO who rejected the claim of the appellant u/s 11 of the Act for deduction of Depreciation as application of Income without appreciating the fact that the issue is no longer res integra consequent upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which allowed depreciation ... application of income. 4) The Ld. CIT(Appeals)- 11 erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO who rejected the claim of the appellant for deduction of 15% on gross receipts u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that expenditure deducted

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. G.T.B Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6398/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri P.K.Kedia[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Dcit, Vs G.T.B. Charitable Trust, Exemption Circle, 227, West End Road, Meerut. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaatg1992R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ramit Kakkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

Tribunal was right in directing the AO to allow depreciation of the asset, the cost of which had been fully allowed as application of income u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act in the past years. I have also noticed that before the Hon'ble High Court, the revenue ... pleaded that allowing the depreciation would tantamount to a double deduction because the cost of asset had earlier been allowed as application of income already. The Hon'ble High Court while negating the revenue's plea, went on to hold in favour of the assessee on the principal that income

Shahshib Minority Welfare and Educational Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(E), Bangalore

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

ITA 2875/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gangadhar Saastry, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)

assessee, the A.O. remarks that the land was purchased in Gudi Bande for Rs.1,52,78,538 and cost was shown as application of income u/s 11 of the I.T.Act. Further, the A.O. states that it is not clear as regards the price of land for which the Secretary

The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore vs. M/S Stella Maris Church, Udupi

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

ITA 3272/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

above explanations after examining fixed deposits held by the assessee. The assessee also offered some explanation with regard to the difference in application of income mentioned in original and revised Form No.10B. 10. With regard to the corpus donations claimed as exempt

The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mangaluru vs. M/S. Shiruru Welfare Trust, Ududpi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 583/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S. Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pratap Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)

income u/s.11(1)(a) or corpus donation u/s.11(1)(d) in the earlier/current year, or exempt income u/s.10(34), and then as application of income u/s. 11(1)(a) in subsequent years which is legally not permissible?". 3) Any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing ... this issue. 6.2 According to the ld AR for the assessee, the assessee is entitled to carry forward the unabsorbed deficit for application against income of subsequent years. It is submitted that the said issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal

Sunshine Educational & Development Society, Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Exemption, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 4727/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 10(23)(c)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 194Section 2(15)Section 251(2)Section 40

Rs.6,63,292/- in the following manner:- Gross receipts as per income and expenditure account disclosed by the assessee : Rs.1,04,85,689 (-) Application of income : Rs. 98,22,397 Taxable income : Rs. 6,32,292 3. Aggrieved by the said denial of benefit of Section 11 for the aforesaid ... which has been completely applied for that activity alone, therefore such a receipt by way of fees has to be seen as an application of income for charitable purpose. As regards another constitutional bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation and others (supra

ITO (E), Ward- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Shri Swami Satyanand Dharmarth Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 70

filed by the assessee was scrutinised and the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 19/10/2016, wherein excess application of income claimed by the assessee was disallowed to be carried forward and claim of depreciation on fixed assets was denied to the assessee. On further ... expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against the income of the subsequent year and whether such adjustment should be treated as application of income in the subsequent year for charitable purposes? It was argued on behalf of the Department that expenditure incurred in the earlier years cannot

Sona Blw Precision Forgings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3134/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

what is the nature of education cess. Second would be whether it is an expenditure or is it a distribution of profits / application of income. Third whether the reliance placed on CBDT Circular dt.18.05.1967 is correct on this issue. 4. Education Cess was brought in for the first time

Sona Okegawa Precision Forgings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 204/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

what is the nature of education cess. Second would be whether it is an expenditure or is it a distribution of profits / application of income. Third whether the reliance placed on CBDT Circular dt.18.05.1967 is correct on this issue. 4. Education Cess was brought in for the first time

ACIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Lal Bahadur Shastri Educational Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6259/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.6258 & 6259/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit (E) Vs. Lal Bahadur Shastri Circle – 1(1), Educational Society New Delhi Plot No.11/7, Sector – 11, Near Metro Station Dwarka New Delhi-110 075 Pan : Aaaal 6364 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hitesh Ambani, C.A. Revenue By Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 11Section 143(3)

During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.2,29,34,154/- as application of income. AO was of the view that depreciation was not allowable to the assessee as the benefit of application of fund has already been claimed when the fixed asset ... claim of deprecation as he was of the view that when the assessee had purchased fixed assets, the same was allowed as application of income and if the deprecation on the same assets is allowed, it would amount to double deduction, which was not permissible. When the matter was carried

ACIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi vs. Lal Bahadur Shastri Educational Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6258/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos.6258 & 6259/Del/2017 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit (E) Vs. Lal Bahadur Shastri Circle – 1(1), Educational Society New Delhi Plot No.11/7, Sector – 11, Near Metro Station Dwarka New Delhi-110 075 Pan : Aaaal 6364 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Hitesh Ambani, C.A. Revenue By Shri Manu Chaurasiya, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 11Section 143(3)

During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.2,29,34,154/- as application of income. AO was of the view that depreciation was not allowable to the assessee as the benefit of application of fund has already been claimed when the fixed asset ... claim of deprecation as he was of the view that when the assessee had purchased fixed assets, the same was allowed as application of income and if the deprecation on the same assets is allowed, it would amount to double deduction, which was not permissible. When the matter was carried