← 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

Shree Jai Govind Gopinath Shiksha Samiti Indore, Indore vs. The CIT(E), Bhopal

ITA 158/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishree Jai Govind Gopinath Cit (Exemption), Shiksha Samitee, Bhopal बनाम/ 49, Gujar Kheda Road, Vs. Mhow (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aacts 9397 Q Assessee By Shri Atik Bansal, Ar Revenue By Ms.Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.10.2023

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)Section 80G(5)(vi)

assessee drew our attention to Para No. 3 of impugned order and submitted that the CIT(E) has noted that the assessee received corpus donations from certain donors during 3 financial years 2019-20 to 2021-22 but not submitted any directions from donors justifying that the donations were really ... nature of ‘corpus donations’. The CIT(E) further noted that the assessee has claimed the donations noted by him as fully exempt on the strength of ‘corpus donations’ and not offered them for taxation. Therefore, it is a violation of section 80G(5)(i) which prescribes thus: “(i) Where

Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3210/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

from such corpus funds. 48. The facts in brief are that, in the course of assessment, the AO observed that, the assessee had shown corpus donation which was exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. Upon perusal of details, the AO further noted that the interest of Rs.25 ... from the donor and thus the decisions relied upon by the assessee was held to be distinguishable. Hence, the AO added the interest on corpus donations as normal donation income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO as the assessee was unable

Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3209/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

from such corpus funds. 48. The facts in brief are that, in the course of assessment, the AO observed that, the assessee had shown corpus donation which was exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. Upon perusal of details, the AO further noted that the interest of Rs.25 ... from the donor and thus the decisions relied upon by the assessee was held to be distinguishable. Hence, the AO added the interest on corpus donations as normal donation income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO as the assessee was unable

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3049/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

from such corpus funds. 48. The facts in brief are that, in the course of assessment, the AO observed that, the assessee had shown corpus donation which was exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. Upon perusal of details, the AO further noted that the interest of Rs.25 ... from the donor and thus the decisions relied upon by the assessee was held to be distinguishable. Hence, the AO added the interest on corpus donations as normal donation income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO as the assessee was unable

Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3010/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)
Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

from such corpus funds. 48. The facts in brief are that, in the course of assessment, the AO observed that, the assessee had shown corpus donation which was exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. Upon perusal of details, the AO further noted that the interest of Rs.25 ... from the donor and thus the decisions relied upon by the assessee was held to be distinguishable. Hence, the AO added the interest on corpus donations as normal donation income of the assessee. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO as the assessee was unable

Bikaner Seva Sangh, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1611/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbikaner Seva Sangh 28/30, Anantwadi, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai- 400002, Pan: Aaatb3552G ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (Exem.) 601, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

amount in the assessment order. It is pertinent to mention that the auditor of the AO has certified that the assessee has not received corpus donation during the year under consideration therefore said amount needs to be taxed. The AO has passed order without the basic verification of the above ... with reply of the assessee in response to these notices vide letter dated: 06.01.2020. It is observed that assessee conveyed NIL against receiving of corpus donation, although the same has been reflected in the balance-sheet. We have gone through the certificate issued by the Statutory Auditor of the assessee

M/S Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3801/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)

Therefore, these are the cases at the most of not discharging onus u/s 65 of 11 Act. In any case all the donation except corpus donation is credited as income of the assessee. In my view these donation cannot be called anonymous donation therefore section 115 BBC read with section

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2127/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

assessee trust is bogus. It is also note worthy here that during search proceedings, the said amount of donation were accounted as corpus donations in the books of the assessee, however, after filing the return in consequence of notice u/s 153A, it converted the same from corpus donation to volunatry ... donation. Whereas the donor company had categorically stated that it had provided corpus donations to the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, the creditworthiness of donor company and genuineness of the donation received by the assessee from M/s Amsoft Global Pvt. Ltd. could not be proved

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jaipal Singh Sharma Trust, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2126/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

assessee trust is bogus. It is also note worthy here that during search proceedings, the said amount of donation were accounted as corpus donations in the books of the assessee, however, after filing the return in consequence of notice u/s 153A, it converted the same from corpus donation to volunatry ... donation. Whereas the donor company had categorically stated that it had provided corpus donations to the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, the creditworthiness of donor company and genuineness of the donation received by the assessee from M/s Amsoft Global Pvt. Ltd. could not be proved

Ait, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2125/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

assessee trust is bogus. It is also note worthy here that during search proceedings, the said amount of donation were accounted as corpus donations in the books of the assessee, however, after filing the return in consequence of notice u/s 153A, it converted the same from corpus donation to volunatry ... donation. Whereas the donor company had categorically stated that it had provided corpus donations to the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, the creditworthiness of donor company and genuineness of the donation received by the assessee from M/s Amsoft Global Pvt. Ltd. could not be proved

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Nidhi Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2124/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

assessee trust is bogus. It is also note worthy here that during search proceedings, the said amount of donation were accounted as corpus donations in the books of the assessee, however, after filing the return in consequence of notice u/s 153A, it converted the same from corpus donation to volunatry ... donation. Whereas the donor company had categorically stated that it had provided corpus donations to the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, the creditworthiness of donor company and genuineness of the donation received by the assessee from M/s Amsoft Global Pvt. Ltd. could not be proved

Ankit Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1842/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 234ASection 271ASection 68Section 69A

assessee trust is bogus. It is also note worthy here that during search proceedings, the said amount of donation were accounted as corpus donations in the books of the assessee, however, after filing the return in consequence of notice u/s 153A, it converted the same from corpus donation to volunatry ... donation. Whereas the donor company had categorically stated that it had provided corpus donations to the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, the creditworthiness of donor company and genuineness of the donation received by the assessee from M/s Amsoft Global Pvt. Ltd. could not be proved

Vishwakarma Educational Trust, Trivandrum vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Trivandrum

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

ITA 901/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvishwakarma Dy. Cit (Exemptions) Educational Trust Aayakar Bhavan 14, Ulloor Lane Peroorkada Road, Kowdiar Vs. Dpi Junction, Jagathy Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Trivandurm 695014 [Pan:Aaatv1824D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Contesting The Processing Of It’S Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19,By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Nfac, Delhi) [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 25.7.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered U/S. 12Aa Of The Act, Filed It’S Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.8.2018 Declaring Nil Income, I.E., Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 On The Entirety Of It’S Income. The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act, Denying It The Benefit Of Section 11 Of The Act, I.E., At An Income Of Rs. 13,34,692. The Denial Of Exemption Was For The Reason Of Non-Audit Of It’S Accounts And, Consequently, Non-Filing Of The Audit Report, Required To Be Filed In The Prescribed Form (Form 10B), Along With The Return Of

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Section 12(1) of the Act, which deems voluntary contributions received by a Trust as income derived from a property held under trust, excludes corpus donations covered u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act. The same is, therefore, not required to be, for availing exemption ... such, the deeming of specified voluntary contributions as income derived from property held under the trust [section 12(1)] or of corpus donations as not includible in the total income [section 11(1)(d)], is to be ignored. Any contribution received by a charitable or religious trust is income

Income Tax Officer(Exem.)-(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2320/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

ITAT has directed the DIT to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, he held that the corpus donation of ₹2 crores and bank interest of ₹1,22,74,579/-, assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. However, with respect to the deduction

Income Tax Officer(Exem.)-(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2319/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

ITAT has directed the DIT to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, he held that the corpus donation of ₹2 crores and bank interest of ₹1,22,74,579/-, assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. However, with respect to the deduction

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-1(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2190/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

ITAT has directed the DIT to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, he held that the corpus donation of ₹2 crores and bank interest of ₹1,22,74,579/-, assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. However, with respect to the deduction

Bank of India Retired Employees Medical Assistance Scheme, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-1(1), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off

ITA 2186/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

ITAT has directed the DIT to grant registration under Section 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, he held that the corpus donation of ₹2 crores and bank interest of ₹1,22,74,579/-, assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. However, with respect to the deduction

DCIT, Circle-1(1)-Exemption, New Delhi vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee-foundation had let out its properties and received rental income from H in relevant assessment years. In addition, the assessee had also received corpus donation from 11 during assessment year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer after making enquiry from various websites held that in lieu of voluntary and corpus

Shri Namiyun Parswanath Jain, Swetamber Manidhari Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Jabalpur

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 100/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sri Rahul Bardia.CA. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

have been condoned relying on the CBDT circular No. 6/2020 dt 19.02.2020 4) That the Comm. (appeals) erred in not adjudicating the ground of corpus donation Rs. 15,02,000,the only income of the trust claimed exempt even if benefit of section 11 not given ... benefit u/s 11 of the Act as the form No.10B was not uploaded along with the return of income and the claim of corpus donation of Rs,15,02,000/- was added and determined the total income of Rs.15,02,000/-. Whereas the assessee has filed application for condonation

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Satyam Educational Trust, Silvasa

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

ITA 167/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

assessee again vide submission dated 25/12/2021 submitted that donation received by assessee is capital receipt and not taxable as the receipt itself shows corpus donation which is capital in nature. The assessee furnished sample copies of donation receipts. On furnishing such evidences, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer ... submissions of the assessee, in para 6 of his order held that the assessee has not raised separate ground of appeal with regard to corpus donation, therefore, he is not in a position to deal with such submission. However, on the denial of exemption under Section