“accumulation of income”

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) without appreciating the fact that in the return of income & form 10B, deficit has been claimed leaving no scope ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) without appreciating that once the assessee was hit by section

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee’s claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) without appreciating the fact that in the return of income & form 10B, deficit has been claimed leaving no scope ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim of accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) without appreciating that once the assessee was hit by section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUMBALLA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

department has challenged the decision of the first appellate authority in remanding the issue of donation to another trust claimed as accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Act. 11. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, while verifying the return of income filed by the assessee

ADV. CHANDANSINH SOLANKI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,VIRAR vs. ITO, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed

Bench: The First Appellate Authority Came To Be Dismissed Ex Parte Without Affording A Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard; & Secondly, That The Lower Authorities Erred In Upholding The Adjustments Made Under Section 143(1), Namely: (A) Denial Of Deduction Under Section 11(1)(A) In Respect Of Actual Revenue Expenditure Of ₹ 89,77,260 Debited To The Income & Expenditure Account; & (B) Disallowance Of The Claim For Statutory Accumulation Of Income Under Section 11(1)(A) To The Extent Of ₹ 11,65,005, Thereby Treating The Gross Receipts Of ₹ 1,01,42,265 As Taxable Income.

actual revenue expenditure of ₹ 89,77,260 debited to the Income and Expenditure Account; and (b) disallowance of the claim for statutory accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a) to the extent of ₹ 11,65,005, thereby treating the gross receipts of ₹ 1,01,42,265 as taxable income ... disallowed the deduction claimed for actual application of income amounting to ₹ 89,77,260 and also denied the benefit of statutory accumulation of income to the extent of 15 per cent of gross receipts amounting to ₹ 11,65,005, thereby taxing the gross receipts

SENIOR CITIZEN SANTACRUZ ( PASCHIM) SANSTHA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

purpose' in Form No.10 amounts to sufficient compliance with section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 11(2) mandates that accumulation of income must be for a specific purpose. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the purpose should be concrete and identifiable, so as to ensure proper monitoring

HOLY FAMILY SCHOOL,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

capital expenditure\namounting to Rs.32,95,282/- claimed as application of income under section 11(1)\nof the Act and denial of accumulation of income amounting to Rs. 35,34,377/-\nclaimed at 15% under section 11(1)(a) of the Act.\nThe assessment was completed by denying the benefit

HOLY CROSS CHURCH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

been consistently held that a marginal delay in filing the audit report should not defeat a substantive claim for exemption. As regards the accumulation of income amounting to Rs. 1,27,00,000/-, we note that the Ld. CIT(A) has already restored the matter to the file ... Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to condone the delay of 30 days in filing Form No. 10BB, verify the factual aspects regarding application and accumulation of income, and allow the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 11 of the Act, in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal of the assessee