← All Phrases

“Section 12(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 12Section 12(1)(b)23 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 12(1)(b) is CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (201 ITR 325), cited in 195 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 12(1)(b)

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

Sarvodaya Charitable Trust v. ITO (Exemption)
125 Taxmann.com 75 · 2021 · High Court
129
citing judgments

The filing of Form 10B for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 is directory, not mandatory. A delay in filing Form 10B can be condoned, and exemption cannot be denied solely on this ground if the assessee satisfies other conditions and shows sufficient cause.

ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai
3 SCC 321 · 2022 · Reported
89
citing judgments

Profits of a business are computed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and then reduced by specific receipts mentioned in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. This means that for the purposes of Section 80HHC, only profits computed under the business head are considered, with subsequent adjustments for specified receipts.

CIT v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd.
41 Taxmann.com 184 · 2014 · High Court
72
citing judgments

A charitable trust that substantially satisfies the conditions for exemption under Section 11 should not be denied the exemption merely due to a delay in filing the audit report in Form 10B, especially when there are discretionary powers to condone such delays.

CIT v. Mayur Foundation
274 ITR 562 · 2005 · High Court
68
citing judgments

The Gujarat High Court held that Form No. 10, for exercising the option under section 11(2) to accumulate income, can be submitted during assessment proceedings, including before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is a continuation of assessment proceedings. Such submission constitutes sufficient compliance for claiming exemption under section 11.

Association of Indian Panelboard Manufacturer v. DCIT
157 Taxmann.com 550 · 2023 · High Court
63
citing judgments

An assessee claiming exemption must follow the procedure in CBDT Circular No. 2/2020 by filing a condonation application under section 119(2)(b) with the CIT for the belated submission of an audit report. The merits of the exemption claim are considered only after such condonation of delay is granted.

CIT v. Shahzadanand Charity Trust
228 ITR 292 · 1997 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The requirement to furnish an audit report along with the return of income under Section 12A(1)(b) is directory, not mandatory. An assessee can submit the audit report at a later stage before the Income Tax Officer or appellate authority if sufficient cause is shown, and delay in furnishing it should not lead to denial of exemption under Section 11.

CIT v. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat
43 Taxmann.com 243 · 2014 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Section 13(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act applies to composite trusts that engage in both religious and charitable activities, meaning such trusts may be excluded from exemption under Section 11.

Judgments citing Section 12(1)(b)

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 813/JPR/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

ermed in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 812/JPR/2024[AY 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 803/JPR/2024[AY 2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 797/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 796/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 795/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 794/JPR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 774/JPR/2024[AY 2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 773/JPR/2024[AY 2003-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

errred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 731/JPR/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 717/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

erred in not accepting the Income tax Return and audit report submitted by Appellant Trust in compliance with the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in upholding the addition

Shree Amar Kshatriya Sabha Charitable Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- ( Exemptions), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 492/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11Section 119Section 12(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

mandates that the return of income for the relevant assessment year must be filed by a specific due date as per section 12(1)(b) rws 44AB of the Act. For the assessment year in question, the extended due date was 15th February 2021 as per CBDT’s order

Rajput Panchayat Dharmshala, Haridwar, Uttrakhand vs. ITO (Exemption) Dehradun, Dehradun

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

ITA 189/DDN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 12(1)(ba)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

succeed. Hence, these appeals are here. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the proviso to section 12(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules mandated filing of the audit report in Form 10B electronically. It was contended that there

Rajput Panchayat Dharmshala, Haridwar, Uttrakhand vs. ITO (Exemption) Dehradun, Dehradun

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

ITA 186/DDN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 12(1)(ba)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

succeed. Hence, these appeals are here. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the proviso to section 12(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules mandated filing of the audit report in Form 10B electronically. It was contended that there

Women Organisation for Socio Cultural Awarness, Keonjhar vs. ITO, Exemptions, Cuttack

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

ITA 67/CTK/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250

allowed nor the benefit of deduction for the expenditure made was allowed. The updated return was processed on 13 February 2023 and as section 12(1)(b) was not complied with, the exemption claimed was not allowed. The Ld. DR relied upon the order

Bright Land College, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Bright Land College, Vs. Income Tax Officer 538A / 543/5, Triveni Nagar (Exemption), Lucknow, The Sitapur Road, Lucknow Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed On 17.10.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Ad Hoc Disallowance Of Expense Of Rs. 1,54,57,795/- Against The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of Income-Tax Act Without Following The Procedure Laid Down In Sub-Section (1) Of Section 143 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Granting Exemption U/S 11 & 12 Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 1 Bright Land College A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12(1)(b)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250

submitted that the assessee society maintains proper books of accounts, which were audited by a Chartered Accountant as per the provisions of section 12(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The correct computation of income under section 11 that ought to have been submitted by the assessee ... Rs.2,17,56,278/- as per the provisions of section 11 as contained in the audit report prepared as per the provisions of section 12(1)(b) of the Act, he pointed out that the expenditure involved had to be relatable to collection of student fee. When income falls under

Textile Development Foundation, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 887/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

uploaded. It is worthwhile to mention here that to claim the benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 the assessee was required as per section 12(1)(b)(ii) to furnish the audit report before the specified date referred to in section 44AB of the IT Act. As per section 44AB ... furnished by the assessee prior to one month of the due date for furnishing the return of income, therefore, the compliance of section 12(1)(b)(ii) r.w.s. 44AB, Explanation (ii) was very well made by the assessee and accordingly the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur

ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Amiya Memorial Trust, Kolkata

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

ITA 652/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Kaustav Chakraborty &For Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

filed Form No.10B in time, therefore, it was not eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and the provisions of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act were violated. The Revenue has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Wipro Ltd. [arising

Bhojalram Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust, Devki Galol vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 668/AHD/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER