← All Phrases

“corpus donation”

Charitable TrustsSection 11(1)(d)Section 11(1)(d)517 judgments

The decision most relied on for corpus donation is CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (211 ITR 293), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on corpus donation

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

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).

P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. CIT
73 ITR 735 · 1969 · Supreme Court
58
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus to prove the genuineness and voluntary nature of donations received, including corpus donations. Failure to discharge this burden allows the Assessing Officer to treat such donations as non-genuine or accommodation entries.

CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.
116 ITR 60 · 1979 · Supreme Court
48
citing judgments

Dharmada collections are not taxable income of the assessee if they are genuinely meant for and spent on charitable purposes, or if they are voluntary contributions not accruing to the assessee's own benefit.

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation
278 ITR 152 · 2005 · High Court
42
citing judgments

For charitable trusts claiming Section 11 exemption, Section 68 concerning cash credits does not apply to donations received. The non-submission or non-production of donor details does not automatically lead to an inference that the trust is introducing unaccounted money.

CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies
345 ITR 362 · 2012 · High Court
40
citing judgments

A one-time fee paid by members, with the understanding that it can only be used for capital purposes, is considered a corpus donation and is not taxable as income. This is especially true when separate fees are collected for services rendered.

DIT v. Shri Ramakrishna Seva Ashram
357 ITR 731 · 2013 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Donations made for a specific purpose are considered capital in nature and cannot be applied for charitable or religious purposes, thus not being deemed income from property for the purposes of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing corpus donation

Mohan Lal Krishan Avtar Rawat Memorial Charitable Trust (Bobas Wale), Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Share and Care Charitable Society, Kaipuzha-Kottayam vs. Income Tax Officer-Exemptions, Kottyayam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 176/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Share & Care Charitable Society .......... Appellant Eden Building, Pallithazhe Junction Kaipuzha, Kottayam 686602 [Pan: Aamas4316G] Vs. Ito (Exemption) , Kottayam .......... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar P.J., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

income of Rs. 13,42,639/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the voluntary contribution of Rs. 17,88,144/- claimed as corpus donation by holding that there is no evidence to show that the donations were corpus donations. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ... contending that the corpus donations do not form part of taxable income. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in the absence of any evidence to show that the donations were received towards corpus fund. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal

Yashotej Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 377/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.377 & 376/Pun/2025 Yashotej Foundation, Sr. No. 60, H. No. 604/4, Kondhwa (Bc), Pune-411048 Vs. Pan: Aabcy3688C अपीलार्थी / Appellant Cit (Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Vishal Ravindra Patil Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari 16-04-2025 29-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 13.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed On 15.06.2024 Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act"). For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

have not submitted details of donation in the requisite format. You were specifically requested to furnish year-wise list of all donations received (including corpus donations etc.) during the last 3 years / since inception, whichever is later viz. full name, complete Postal address & PAN of donor, date & mode of donation

Yashotej Foundation, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 376/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.377 & 376/Pun/2025 Yashotej Foundation, Sr. No. 60, H. No. 604/4, Kondhwa (Bc), Pune-411048 Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune Pan: Aabcy3688C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vishal Ravindra Patil Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 16-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 13.12.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed On 15.06.2024 Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act"). For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Ravindra PatilFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

have not submitted details of donation in the requisite format. You were specifically requested to furnish year-wise list of all donations received (including corpus donations etc.) during the last 3 years / since inception, whichever is later viz. full name, complete Postal address & PAN of donor, date & mode of donation

Kakadiya Parivarna Kuldevi Shree Brahmani Khodiyar Trust, Amreli vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward(2), Rajkot.

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

ITA 140/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiassessment Year: (2021-2022) Kakadiya Parivarna Kuldevi Sghree The Ito Exemption Brahmani Khodiyar Trust Ward-2, Rajkot. Vs. Jaysukhbhai Laljibhai Kakadiya Jarkhida, Ta. Lathi, Amreli Pan : Aadtk 1328 E (Assessee) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

assessee explained me that assessee is duly registered u/s 12A of the Act and hence it had claimed deduction u/s 11 in respect of corpus donation, amount applied on objects of the trust in the return of income filed for the year. However, the same is denied

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Kashi Math Samsthan Varanasi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1451/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath,ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

case and in law, the NFAC has erred in allowing the donation of Rs.1,74,50,201/-under head ‘Hundi Kanika' as corpus donation u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee trust had failed to substantiate that the donations are received with specific ... circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC has erred in allowing the donation of Rs.84,32,908/-under head ‘moolnidhi' as corpus donation u/s 11(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee trust had failed to substantiate that the donations are received with

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1261/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

credited to Development Fund account were not in the nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... decision of the Assessee to treat some of the receipts as payments towards corpus would not change the nature of receipt from income to corpus donations We note that the Rule 22 of the Rules governing the Assessee/MEDA placed on record by the Assessee, specifically provides that the funds

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1260/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

credited to Development Fund account were not in the nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... decision of the Assessee to treat some of the receipts as payments towards corpus would not change the nature of receipt from income to corpus donations We note that the Rule 22 of the Rules governing the Assessee/MEDA placed on record by the Assessee, specifically provides that the funds

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1259/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

credited to Development Fund account were not in the nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... decision of the Assessee to treat some of the receipts as payments towards corpus would not change the nature of receipt from income to corpus donations We note that the Rule 22 of the Rules governing the Assessee/MEDA placed on record by the Assessee, specifically provides that the funds

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1258/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

credited to Development Fund account were not in the nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... decision of the Assessee to treat some of the receipts as payments towards corpus would not change the nature of receipt from income to corpus donations We note that the Rule 22 of the Rules governing the Assessee/MEDA placed on record by the Assessee, specifically provides that the funds

Satyendranath Bose Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2339/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Satyendranath Bose Educational Vs Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata & Social Welfare Trust, 19/2/5, Amar Chakraborthy Rd. Ac Road Khagra, Berhampur-742103 Pan No. : Aaots 9288 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.09.2024, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Denying The Benefit Of Exemption Claimed U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Failed To Correctly Appreciate That The Assessee Was Indeed Maintaining & Aiding Education Institutions & It Existed Solely For Educational Purposes Without Any Motive For Profit & Since Its Annual Receipts Did Not Exceed The Limit Of Rs.1 Crores, It Had Rightly Claimed Exemption U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 10Section 250

what is not includible in the total income of a charitable institution is the receipt by way of corpus donation. However the Act nowhere defines the expression or term 'corpus' donation. However this term has been judicially interpreted by the Courts. We note that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court ... onetime fee paid by members who are aware that it could be spent by assessee only towards capital purposes was in the nature of corpus donation and not taxable as income. The Court also took note of the fact that apart from the one time fees, the association was collecting

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

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

ITA 417/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh. Apurva Mehta & Rajesh Mehta, ARs
Section 10Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 250

view in cases where annual receipts of each educational institutions are less than one crores (relevant portion reproduced) as under: “We find that the corpus donations received by the assessee society are separated, the annual receipts of the educational institution are only Rs 69,24,857/-. Keeping in view

A P E A and O E W Fund Trust, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. MuraliMohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 161

from the donor. Since the contributions were made compulsory under statutory mandate, the Ld. AO held that the same need not be treated as corpus donation and consequently, added the entire contributions of Rs.14,34,99,307/- to the total income of the assessee. During the first appellate proceedings ... objects of the trust. Accordingly, the assessee treated the entire contributions of Rs.14,34,99,307/- as corpus fund. In our considered view, corpus donations need not arise from voluntary ITA No.41/Hyd/2025 7 contributions in a narrow sense, particularly where the receipt is tied to a specific purpose, hence

Rajarshi Shahu Shikshan Sanstha Inam Dhamani, Sangli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1024/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 10Section 115BSection 119Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(2)

viii) Proof of identity of the main trustee/managing trustees/ directors/ president /secretary of the institution (ix) Year-wise list of all donations received (including corpus donations etc.) during the last 3 years/since inception, whichever is later viz. name of donor, address of donor, amount of donation, mode of donation

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

held that where revenue audit party, objected to finalization of return of assessee-trust at 'Nil for reason that during year assessee received corpus donations which were not included in income for application under section 11, reopening of assessment on basis of such audit objection could not be treated ... income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of assessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations which were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis of revenue audit objection, Assessing Officer decided to reopen assessment of assessee

Manasbal Trust, New Delhi vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5469/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Advocate and Shri Mahender Goel, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

merits. 6. On merits of the issue in appeal, the ld. Counsel submits that the assessee in appeal has assailed denial of deduction/exemption on corpus donations u/s. 11 (1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- He submitted ... processing return of income without issuing any notice has denied the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of corpus donations. She submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. In support

S. Easwaramoorthy, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

ITA 2696/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133A

trust, there are 32 trustees. During the course of survey proceedings, it was found that he trustees of the trust have contributed towards corpus donation and admitted Rs.2.25 Crores as additional income in the name of the trustees. Books of accounts and documents have been impounded. The assessee Shri ARAVIND

K. Paramasivam, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

ITA 2694/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 133A

trust, there are 32 trustees. During the course of survey proceedings, it was found that he trustees of the trust have contributed towards corpus donation and admitted Rs.2.25 Crores as additional income in the name of the trustees. Books of accounts and documents have been impounded. The assessee Shri ARAVIND

Palanisamy Gounder Loganathan, Karur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karur

ITA 2589/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

trust, there are 32 trustees. During the course of survey proceedings, it was found that he trustees of the trust have contributed towards corpus donation and admitted Rs.2.25 Crores as additional income in the name of the trustees. Books of accounts and documents have been impounded. The assessee Shri ARAVIND

Shri Sheshavtar 1008 Shri Kallaji Vedpith Evam Shodh Sansthan, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Udaipur, Aaykar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, CA &For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

Trust had received total receipts of Rs. 1,59,10,740/- during the financial year, out of which Rs. 1,14,06,043/- were corpus donations. The AO observed that Rs. 1,00,13,516/- of these corpus donations were anonymous. The AO, therefore, called upon the Trust to explain ... response to the AO’s finding, the Trust argued that the anonymous donations should not be taxed under section 115BBC(1) and that the corpus donations for specific purposes, such as the development of the Gaushala Building should be exempt from taxation. The Trust also contended that the income applied