← 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

Viswamanava Samaikyata Samsat, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/S. Viswamanava Samikyata Vs. Income Tax Officer Samsat, Guntur. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaatv 1597 P Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

which was capitalized during the AY 2015-16. Further, the Ld. AO also observed that the assessee made incorrect claim of corpus donations received by the assessee during the year amounting to Rs. 4,20,54,192/- though there was no specific direction received from the donors to treat ... same as corpus donations which are revenue in nature. Therefore, the Ld. AO opined that the amount of Rs. 42,12,584/- escaped from 3 assessment for the AY 2014-15 and also rejected the claim of exemption of Rs.4

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -26(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. R D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3703/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Atui T. Suraiya, C.A and Shri T.P. Ostwal, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)

remain invested or deposited even after 30.11.1983. However, in the case of assessee, the trust was set up only in 1990 with a corpus donation, hence there is no question of any fund being invested or deposited in non-permissible fund before 01.01.1983. 3.5. Assessee also distinguished the facts ... held that there is violation of section 13(1)(d). In the case of the assessee, it has received the shares as corpus donation and the assessee has not sold/converted them in any other mode of investment. 3.6. Ld. Assessing Officer denied the exemption

Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Trust, Khambhat vs. The ITO, Ward (Exemption), Vadodara

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

ITA 227/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Income-Tax Officer, Trust, Ward (Exemption), 1, Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana, Vadodara Opp. Bus Stand, Khambhat, Gujarat-388620 Pan : Aaatd 2007 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Ankit Chokshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 250

outset, it was stated that there was a solitary issue in the present appeal, being the allowance of claim of exemption to corpus donation 2 Dawoodi Bohra Musafirkhana Trust Vs. ITO AY : 2016-17 received/utilized for capital purposes u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, considering that the said corpus ... held the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act, on account of utilization of this corpus donation, as not tenable, as it tantamounted to double exemption claimed by the assessee. It is against this denial of exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act that

DCIT, C-1 (E), Chandigarh vs. M/S Shri Aurobindo Socio Economic & Management Research Institute, Ludhina

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1375/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

items. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in not allowing exemption u/s 11(l)(d) on the corpus donations of Rs.6,00,00,000/- received during the year under consideration. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts ... allowing exemption u/s 11(l)(d) on the corpus donations of Rs.26,40,000/- received during the year under consideration. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in not allowing accumulation or set apart of funds amounting

Sir Aurobindo Socio Economic & Management Research Institute, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), Chandigarh

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1348/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

items. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in not allowing exemption u/s 11(l)(d) on the corpus donations of Rs.6,00,00,000/- received during the year under consideration. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts ... allowing exemption u/s 11(l)(d) on the corpus donations of Rs.26,40,000/- received during the year under consideration. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in not allowing accumulation or set apart of funds amounting

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Pgp Charitable Trust, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 471/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 12ASection 132Section 153C

years 2009-10 to 2013-14 which were duly furnished. On verification of the same, the ld. AO observed that assessee had received huge corpus donations during these years which are tabulated in Page 3 of the assessment order. The assessee was asked to provide project/ activity wise details ... receipts and expenditure for each year, along with name and address of the donors who had given Corpus Donations. The details were filed by the assessee. On perusal of the details, it was concluded that :- a) There is no written consent of the donors regarding the utilization of the funds

DCIT, Central Circle, Noida vs. Pgp Charitable Trust, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 470/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 12ASection 132Section 153C

years 2009-10 to 2013-14 which were duly furnished. On verification of the same, the ld. AO observed that assessee had received huge corpus donations during these years which are tabulated in Page 3 of the assessment order. The assessee was asked to provide project/ activity wise details ... receipts and expenditure for each year, along with name and address of the donors who had given Corpus Donations. The details were filed by the assessee. On perusal of the details, it was concluded that :- a) There is no written consent of the donors regarding the utilization of the funds

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3785/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 43Section 80G

authorities is not correct. Before us, the assessee placed reliance on various case laws, which dealt with the case of receipt of corpus donations by a charitable trust/institution not registered u/s 12A of the Act. The Pune bench of Tribunal has held in the case of ITO (Exemptions) vs. Serum

Gemmological Inistitute of India, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3784/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 43Section 80G

authorities is not correct. Before us, the assessee placed reliance on various case laws, which dealt with the case of receipt of corpus donations by a charitable trust/institution not registered u/s 12A of the Act. The Pune bench of Tribunal has held in the case of ITO (Exemptions) vs. Serum

Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 536/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust,.……………………..….Appellant Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Aaatm7631F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Exemptions, Kolkata, 10B, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071 Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S. Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 09, 2024 O R D E R

Section 11Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 44A

assessee trust. (b) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CPC failed to appreciate that the corpus donation made by the assessee Trust was never claimed as deduction / application of income in terms of the exception set out in Explanation (2) to Section ... under:- 3 Madhav Prasad Priyamvada Birla Apex Charitable Trust 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee has made a corpus donation of Rs.99,28,000/-, which will not qualify towards application of funds in the objectives of the assessee-Trust under section 11. In other words

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3372/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2021-22 The Institute Of Company Vs. Dcit, Secretaries Of India, Circle Exemp Icsi House 2(1) 22 Institutional Area, Delhi Lodi Road, H.O Aliganj, Delhi 110003 Pan Aaatt1103F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT- DR
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

calculation for required accumulation is as under:- The Institute of Company Secretaries of India vs. DCIT 4 Receipts for the year less of corpus donations -150,87,77,329 Less:- 15% allowed without application -22,63,16,600 Remaining 85% to be applied -128,24,60,729 Less Actually applied

Pandit Nathu Ram Gaur Charitable Trust, Khondli Krishna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward Exemption, 2(4), Civic Centre

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

That the Appellant having duly disclosed the voluntary contributions u/h other than corpus, the action of the CPC in treating the same as corpus donation is factually incorrect. 3.2 That if any case, if the said donation is considered as corpus donation, the same should be treated as exempted income

S D Educational Society, Hisar vs. Pr CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishanan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

provided with comprehensive and complete answers to his various queries. Thereafter the Ld. CIT(E) being of the opinion, that the genuineness of the corpus donations remained unverified and unexamined by the AO and further that the unsecured loans had not been properly verified and after holding “that the replies ... order arising out of the Authority omitting to make the requisite enquiry. 13. The first observation of the Ld. CIT(E) is that the corpus donations have not been verified by the AO and that he has failed to make the requisite enquiries in that behalf during assessment. That

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

extent of 85% Rs. 9.51 lakhs (b) Income accumulated to the extent of 15% u/s. 11(1)(a/b) Rs. 1.68 lakhs (c) Corpus donation u/s. 11(1)(d) Rs.133.20 lakhs Total Rs. 144.39 lakhs ============ The same was denied on processing the said return vide Intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) dated ... application u/s. 154 of the Act on 04.08.2015, stating that it’s income for the relevant year was only Rs.11.19 lakhs, the balance being corpus donation, exigible for exemption u/ss. 10(23C)(iiiad) and 11(1)(d) of the Act respectively. Adverting to the Board Circular No. 320 dated

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

their parents, cannot be regarded as voluntary; and (b) there is no written direction from the donees for the same to be regarded as corpus donation. 3.2 There is, to begin with, no conflict between a receipt being capital in nature and, by fiction of law, being an income chargeable ... students or, more correctly, their parents, come together, once a year, at a specified time, and agree to contribute a specific sum toward corpus donation to the assessee, one each for the school building and EWS, and of course de hors the assessee, who has therefore no role therein

Radhakrishna Akshar Vikas Nyas, Vidisha vs. The ACIT 3 (1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniradhakrishna Akshar Vikas Acit 3(1) Nyas Bhopal Vs. Braj Colony Sironj Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatr 8725M Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2024

Section 11Section 115BSection 68

account and other documents impounded which were found to be in order, therefore did not make any additions or did not treated the corpus donations as anonymous donation and passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) Page 7 of 10 ITANo.398/Ind/2022 Radhakrishna Akshar Vikas Nyas by accepting the returned income

Girirajiji Raghunandan Shiksha Prasar and Vikas Samiti, Indore vs. ITO ( Exemption), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 342/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Indore13 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Girirajji Income-Tax Officer Raghunandan Shiksha (Exemption), Prasar & Vikas Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ 45, Vaishali Nagar, Vs. Kotra Sultanabad, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaba59632G Assessee By Shri S.N.Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2024

Section 115BSection 147Section 250

want of details and explanations. The assessee challenged the said addition made by the AO and also filed additional evidences in support of the corpus donations of Rs. 56,82,500/- before CIT(A). Since there was no response to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore ... addition made by the AO. We further note that the AO has asked the assessee on 20th December, 2016, to explain why the corpus donation should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee u/s 115BBC and the impugned order was passed by the AO on 29th

Gold Field Shiksha Sansthan, Faridabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(Exemption), Chandigarh

ITA 1507/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 Gold Field Shiksha Vs. Dcit Sansthan, 703, Krystal Circle-2 Apartments, Sec-48, (Exemption) Faridabad, Haryana Chandigarh Pan No.Aaatg5277D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Ms. Uma Upadhyay,Ca Respondent By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234Section 68

making addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- treating it as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, by holding that Corpus donation received from Quadeye Securities (P) Ltd. is accommodation entry. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Faridabad erred in relying upon the material/statement ... Income tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Faridabad erred in confirming the action of AO of treating the receipt of corpus donation of Rs. 17,56,04,562/- as voluntary contribution on the basis of suspicion and surmises without giving any reasonable opportunity to the appellant

Give Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

ITA 795/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 234BSection 25Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 8

concerned on whether the concurrent claims for depreciation and capital expenditure as application of income to charitable purposes would be permissible and whether the corpus donations are to be brought to tax. 19. With respect to Issue No. 3, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in view ... assessee's submission on Issue No. 1 above, corpus donations would be exempt under section 11(1)(d) of the Act. However, since the primary issue i.e. Issue No. 1 involved for all the Assessment Years under consideration has been restored to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo

Mr & Mrs S.M.Batha Education Trust, Satara vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala
Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(3)

with rule 17(C) of the ITAT Rules. It is further submitted that the investments made in Mutual Funds are out of accumulations and corpus donations. The accretions in investments are on account of re-investing income generated from such investments, and, hence, the allegation of the Department that ... same have been consistently shown as ‘capital asset’ by the Appellant in its books of accounts. 10. Erred in not appreciating that the corpus donation in the form of Fixed Maturity Plan (FMP) mutual funds, received from Mr. Kanga through a ‘Deed of Gift-Settlement’, cannot be redeemed unless