← 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

DCIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Chandigarh vs. M/S Indo Global Education Foundation, Kharar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 26/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 26/Chd/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, M/S Indo Global बनाम Circle-1(Exemptions), Education Foundation, Chandigarh Vill. Abhipur, Vs. Sub Tehsil Majra, Tehsil Kharar, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaati2838L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

accordingly, theexemption was disallowed. vi. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erredin-law in ignoring that Corpus donation given by the assessee also formedpart of the pool of funds of the donee and that it was important to check theactivities ... donation given to it, cannot be treated as application of income and for the other two trusts, it was argued that the 'corpus donation' given to these trusts is without any specific purposes and it was further argued that there was no proper object related to give donation

Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti Seva Trust, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Jurisdiction - Rajkot

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

ITA 124/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.124/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Rachnatmak Samiti Seva Vs. Adit, Trust. Cpc, Bengaluru. Rashtriya Shala Compound, Jurisdiction Rajkot. Rajkot- 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaats9227M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghvi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)

follows: 1. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the ADIT-CPC's contention of bringing to tax corpus donation of 3,00,00,000/-. 2. That the Hon'ble CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the adjustments u/s 143(1) of the Act, made ... object of the trust and the allowable accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also duly declared the corpus donation of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. However, Learned assessing officer (CPC) whilst

Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee Trust, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Unit, Chennai

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

ITA 3153/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 3153/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Dadha & Co Golden Jubilee The Income Tax Officer, Trust, V. Exemptions Ward-1, 250, Lloyds Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 014. [Pan:Aaatd 2527M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the facts and stated that the AO had issued show-cause notice on 12.04.2021 proposing to deny exemption of corpus donation of Rs.1.2 crores and passed the order on 16.04.2021. The assessee had filed revised Form 10 for accumulation of Rs.3.2 crores along with ... trustees to accumulate the excess amount for construction of new school of the trust. The assessee after coming to know that the corpus donation of Rs.1.20 crores paid during the impugned A.Y. to Vardhaman Jain Shikshan Sansthan, Jodhpur is not eligible for application of funds of the trust, wanted

Mandke Foundation, Mumbai vs. ACIT Exemption-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 329/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Mandke Foundation V/S. Acit Exemptions-2, Plot No. 141, A Four बनाम Mumbai Bunglows, Rao Saheb Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Achyutrao Patwardhan Cumbala Hill, Mtnl Telli Marg, Andheri West, Phone Exchange Building, Maharashtra-400053 Pedder Road, Maharashtra-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatm4557G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234DSection 250

running a Multi-specialised Hospital and has filed its return for AY 2017-18 on 24.10.2017 declaring nil income. The assessee had received corpus donations of Rs. 1 cr. from the Estate of Rajiv Shah Shah during FY 2012-13. The donor had given this amount with the direction that ... rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the assessee has been receiving interest income since AY 2013-14 on the corpus donation of Rs. 1 cr. made by the Estate of Rajiv Shah with the direction to meet out the expenditure of medical assistance to be given

Gurudwara Shri Guru Angaddevji Sahebji Nyas, Indore vs. CIT (E), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 724/IND/2024[Nil]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshigurudwara Shri Guru Cit(Exemption) Angaddevjisahebji Nyas, G-2, Aakash Apartment, Bhopal बनाम/ Rajmahal Colony Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aadtg1650R Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.03.2025

Section 12A

filed certain information/documents in response to the notice issued but, however, did not file reply to the notice dated 09.07.2024 seeking further information of corpus donations received during last three financial years. 3. Ld. AR next submitted that the Balance-Sheet of assessee as on 31.03.2024 shows total corpus donations ... submitted that the assessee has already collected the letters of M/s Satyanshu Trading Company and M/s Manoj Trading Company who had given corpus donations of Rs. 40,00,000/- and Rs. 30,00,000/- to assessee and for remaining corpus donation of Rs. 50,000/-, the efforts are being made

Shri Sthankvasi Jain Sangh Clerk Colony, Indore vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 431/IND/2024[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimember Assessment Year 2022-23

Section 12ASection 253

Expenditure A/c is called for but no specific format was provided. So, appellant provided the details as per his best understanding. Confirmation as to corpus donation is also available which can be submitted now. Rejection on this ground is not fair as the activities of the trust is genuine

The Sultankhan Educational Trust, Thane vs. CIT Exemption, Thane

ITA 2236/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: HeardITAT Pune21 Mar 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 80GSection 80G(5)

noticed that the assessee failed to submit the required documents such as intent letter to prove the genuineness of the corpus donation. Further, the assessee did not file any document to justify and prove the genusiness of huge work-in-progress shown in his books of account but only submitted

Arvind Charitable Trust, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 301/COCH/2024[AY 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

Delhi High Court and gave its finding which is as follows:- “22. The above extracted portion is relevant for the ratios that the Corpus donations received by the Trust, which is not registered u/s.12A / 12AA of the Act, are not taxable as they assume the nature of `Capital receipt

Kailaswasi Narayan Alias Bapu Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 620/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

could not prove the genuineness of donation, it is an absurd claim of the appellant that such donations credited to the capital account as corpus donation is entitled to exemption u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act. As has been rightly stated by the AO that section 12 states about ... accounts. Therefore, the AO had rightly denied the appellant's claim of the contributions to the extent of Rs. 24,82,619/- as corpus donations. 5.3.2 Now, the AO has treated the said receipts as appellant's unexplained credits u/s. 68 of the Act, which the appellant had allegedly claimed

Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

ITA 6490/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Versova Kokni Sunni Ito (E)(2)(4) Jamat Trust Mtnl Building Shop No. 1, Ashiyana Vs. Cubballa Hill Manzil, Tere Galli No. 1 Mumbai-400 Versova, Andheri West 026. Mumbai-400 061. Pan : Aabtv7167L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

were kept at the godown and the retrieval of documents took time. Also, due to Faceless Assessment all documents had to be scanned like Corpus Donation Letters, Purchase Agreement and other relevant documents which also contributed for delay in submission of details. 4. On facts & circumstances of the case ... grossly erred in over looking the fact that Corpus Donation given for specific purpose is a capital receipt not liable to be taxed at all. 2 Versova Kokni Sunni Jamat Trust 5. On facts & circumstances of the case & in law the CIT(A) grossly erred on the basic issue that

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1290/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P Kumar –For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

trust, the Ld. AO found that the assessee has gross receipts of Rs. 3,90,36,660/- during the relevant AY. It has shown corpus donation of Rs. 2,25,87,558/- claiming deduction under section 11(1)(d) and deduction of Rs. 1,05,27,050/- under section

Nilaa Charitable Trust, Villupuram vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 3126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mr. Sendamarai Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

fact disclosed the donations of Rs. 18,24,200/- as its income and it could not be disputed that all receipts, other than corpus donations would be income in the hands of the assessee. There was thus full disclosure of income by the assessee and also application of the donations

Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Apne Aap Women World Wide (India) Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is ALLOWED

ITA 3176/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Rathi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

disallowances AO has made the following disallowances- (1) Grants .. Rs.4,87,10,480 (2) other income (as per assessee) .. Rs.10,32,104 (3) Corpus donation .. Rs.46,20,684 The AO held that there is a violation of the provisions of sec. 13(1)(c)/ 13(2)(c) r.w.s.13

Palloottigiri Society, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

which the income was assessed at Rs. 59,95,702/-. Further, the additions and disallowances were made in respect of the claim of corpus donation from abroad and the receipt from the sundry debtors and the income from the sale of vehicle. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal against ... appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that there was no actual incomes reported inaccurately but because of some clarity, the said incomes of corpus donations was added to the income and therefore the said income is not a concealment for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee also contended that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Samsthan Gokarn Parthagali Jeevotham Math, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 49/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Shree Samsthan Dcit(Exemptions) – 2(1) Gokarn Parthagali Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Jeevotham Math Mtnl, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400031. Cumbala Hill, Mumbai – 400026. Pan/Gir No. Aaaas6210M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G(5)

right in allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating 'Shaswat Seva Fund and Earmarked Fund' as corpus donation aggregating to Rs. 2,06,96,221/- whereas the 2 Shree Samsthan Gokarn Parthagali Jeevotham Math, Mumbai assessee failed to submit documentary evidence and substantiate the identity of donors as well ... relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(E) allowing the appeal of the assessee by treating the amount received by the assessee as corpus donation in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 3. In this regard, we have heard the counsel for both the parties

Grant Medical Foundation, Pune vs. Income Tax Office, Exemption Circle, Pune

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

ITA 1193/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

determining total income at Nil after making addition of Rs.7 crores on 2 account of non corpus donation and disallowance of depreciation of Rs.33,00,69,972/-. However, since after making the above additions and after allowing the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act to the extent

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

general public utility or commercial in nature. 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding the corpus donations of Rs.85,00,00,000/- as income u/s.11(1)(d). The ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had sought time ... That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the corpus donation as income u/s. 11(1)(d). 4.1 Without prejudice to above and in the alternative, the computation of total taxable income should have been

Shri Soji Jain Shweta Derasar Murti Punjak Sangh, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward(Exemption), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 929/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Hiral Patel & Shri Bhavesh Soni, ARsFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

r.w.s.147 of the Act by Shri Soji Jain Shweta Derasar Murti Punjak Sangh Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– not allowing deduction for corpus donation under section 11(1)(d) as trust is not registered under section 12AA. 2. The Learned CIT (A) had dismissed partial appeal filed ... appellant against the AO order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by not accepting corpus donation as capital receipt because it is found from the assessment order that there is no finding of AO on utilization of said fund of Rs.1,24,47,730/-.” The brief facts

Aacharya Shri Rushirajbaba Pratisthan, Nagpur vs. CIT, Exemption, Pune

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 592/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Ms. Shrishti PandeFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

line with the objects of the trust/institution. (iii) 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. name of donor, address of donor, amount of donation, mode of donation / receipts

Shree Vardhman Stanakvasi Jain Shravak Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1881/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Parin S Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V K Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234A

passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in treating corpus donation of Rs. 17,96,000/- as voluntary donation. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in not allowing application of income ... During the year under consideration, the assessee trust received donation of Rs. 17,96,000/- for building fund and the same was treated as corpus donation, and claimed as exempt from tax since it was specifically ear-marked as corpus donation and the said amount was not offered as income