← All Phrases

“accumulation of income”

Charitable TrustsSection 11(2)Section 11(2)359 judgments

The decision most relied on for accumulation of income is Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT (348 ITR 344), cited in 164 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on accumulation of income

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Raj Kumar
318 ITR 462 · 2009 · High Court
119
citing judgments

Genuine trade advances made by a company in the ordinary course of business to a shareholder do not fall within the definition of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association
247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court
112
citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities
135 ITR 485 · 1982 · High Court
98
citing judgments

The income of a charitable trust, particularly income from property held under trust, for the purpose of claiming exemption under Section 11, must be computed in a normal commercial manner, without strict reference to the computation provisions for different heads of income like Section 14 or Section 24(a). This approach ensures that the income available for application or accumulation is assessed on commercial principles.

CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation
248 ITR 1 · 2001 · Supreme Court
90
citing judgments

The 15% exemption available to charitable trusts under Section 11(1)(a) is absolute and is not curtailed by the provisions of Section 11(2) regarding accumulation of income. Voluntary contributions received towards the corpus of a trust are excluded from the scope of income for Section 11(1)(a) exemption purposes.

CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation
228 ITR 620 · 1997 · High Court
73
citing judgments

For charitable or religious trusts, income for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 must be computed on a commercial basis, not head-wise as per Section 14, treating expenditure as a charge against income. The net income, along with non-corpus donations, forms the eligible base for determining the application of funds and the permissible accumulation under Section 11(1)(a).

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.

ACIT v. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust
216 ITR 697 · 1995 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The exemption for income accumulated under section 11(1)(a) (presently 15%) is absolute, and section 11(2) does not restrict its operation or require such accumulated income to be invested in specified securities. Investment requirements under section 11(2) apply only to accumulation beyond this absolute exemption limit.

Judgments citing accumulation of income

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 553/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

reason that the Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 552/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

reason that the Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption

Maharashra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 551/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

reason that the Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 550/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

reason that the Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption

Maharashtra Nursing Council, Mumbai vs. DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 549/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 271BSection 44A

reason that the Assessee did not comply with the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of income and hence there was an escapement of income. The AO completed the assessments of these years denying exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Since the Assessee was denied exemption

Radha Krishna Mandir Trust, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 48/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanajy Awasthiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying in making adjustment to the total returned income the assessee’s claim of accumulation of income of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. He urged before the Bench to reverse the action of the Ld. CIT(A). 2 Radha Krishna Mandir Trust

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 22/LKW/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

observed that at the time of filing of the return for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, no notice for accumulation of income in the prescribed Form No.10 was furnished by the assessee. From Form No.10-B, the ld. AO had observed that the excess of income over expenditure ... section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 21/LKW/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

observed that at the time of filing of the return for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, no notice for accumulation of income in the prescribed Form No.10 was furnished by the assessee. From Form No.10-B, the ld. AO had observed that the excess of income over expenditure ... section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund

U.P Housing & Development Board, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

ITA 535/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel & Sh. Mazhar Akram, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12A

observed that at the time of filing of the return for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, no notice for accumulation of income in the prescribed Form No.10 was furnished by the assessee. From Form No.10-B, the ld. AO had observed that the excess of income over expenditure ... section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund

U.P Housing & Development Board, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow

ITA 534/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. G.C. Shrivastava, Special Counsel &
Section 11Section 12A

observed that at the time of filing of the return for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, no notice for accumulation of income in the prescribed Form No.10 was furnished by the assessee. From Form No.10-B, the ld. AO had observed that the excess of income over expenditure ... section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 20 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 533/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

observed that at the time of filing of the return for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, no notice for accumulation of income in the prescribed Form No.10 was furnished by the assessee. From Form No.10-B, the ld. AO had observed that the excess of income over expenditure ... section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund

Income Tax Officer-2(3), Lucknow vs. U.P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow

ITA 532/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11Section 12A

observed that at the time of filing of the return for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09, no notice for accumulation of income in the prescribed Form No.10 was furnished by the assessee. From Form No.10-B, the ld. AO had observed that the excess of income over expenditure ... section 11(2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income. 7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund

Gopsai Avinandan Sangha, Kolkata vs. ITO(E), Ward-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1268/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 1268/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Gopsai Avinandan Sangha,……….......……Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No. 203, Off. Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaatg8930F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer (Exemption),…………....Respondent Ward-1(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Middleton Row, 10B, Sir William Jones Sarani, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 7, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: February 26, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz):- The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 26Th September, 2023 Passed For Assessment Year 2012-13. 1 Gopsai Avinandan Sangha 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue At The Time Of Hearing. Therefore, We Have Decided To Dispose Of The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee & On The Basis Of Material Available On Record.

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment order under section 143(3)/263 dated 06.09.2017 by making addition of Rs.86,18,353/- disallowing exemption under section 11 being accumulation of income for charitable purpose to the extent not exceeding 15% of the income. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

DCIT, Middletonton Row vs. Bishnupur Public Education Institute, Bishnupur

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

ITA 1021/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

assessee submitted that the return was filed by the assessee on 17.02.2017, though in the said return no claim was made as regards accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings made

ACIT, Kolkata vs. Bandhan Konnagar, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1593/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

income with a specific purpose and such purpose is specified in the main objects of the trust, then the AO cannot deny such accumulation of income merely for the reason that purpose specified in Form No. 10 is vague and general in nature. As long as objects of the trust ... assessee in giving notice to the Income-tax Officer in Form No. 190 listing all its objects for the purpose of accumulation of income as provided in section 11(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires specification of the purposes?” 12. The Ld. DR has further relied

Gujarat Council of Science City, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

have confirmed the disallowance of application of income of Rs.12,09,85,532/- on revenue account and Rs.1,79,75,143/- as accumulation of income, thus totalling to Rs.13,89,60,675/-. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well ... lines of amusement/entertainment park which activities cannot be termed as providing education to the public. Hence the exemptions u/s.11 & 12 towards application and accumulation of income were disallowed to the extent of Rs.13,89,60,675/- and corpus donation of Rs.85 Crores vide impugned order. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant

Sri Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

hereby allowed. 18. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the accumulation of income of Rs. 54,61,28,031/- under section 11(2) of the Act. 18.1 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed from ... Dharmodayam Co Vs ITO reported in 59 taxmann.com 467 held that existing FDRs, which is free from any lien constitutes sufficient compliance for accumulated the income under section 11(2) of the Act. The relevant extraction of the judgment is reproduced as under: 12. In the instant case, there

Sri Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

hereby allowed. 18. The issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 3 is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the accumulation of income of Rs. 54,61,28,031/- under section 11(2) of the Act. 18.1 During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed from ... Dharmodayam Co Vs ITO reported in 59 taxmann.com 467 held that existing FDRs, which is free from any lien constitutes sufficient compliance for accumulated the income under section 11(2) of the Act. The relevant extraction of the judgment is reproduced as under: 12. In the instant case, there

Matushri Shambai Lohana Mahajanwadi Trust, Kalyan vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 5526/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. D/R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)

submitted that Form 10 was not filed along with return of income, thus the Respondent is not entitled to the benefit of accumulation of income under Section 11 of the Act. In any case, Form 10 was filed by the Respondent not during the assessment proceedings but during

Prof. Rajendra Singh Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur vs. DCIT, CPC Bengaluru and ITO, Exemption, Ujjain

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2019-20 Prof. Rajendra Singh Dcit, Cpc Gangaluru Shikshan Samiti, Mandsaur बनाम/ Saraswati Shishu Mandir Vs. Keshav Nagar (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeap0905C Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

this case, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering claim of the assessee for accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee made available such Form No.10 before the CIT(A) at the time ... passed by CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct the AO to allow benefit of accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering Form No.10 filed by the assessee along with other evidences.” 9. As such Respectfully