“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 166/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

Geeta Vidya Mandir Samiti, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1973/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Chhabra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)

ownership. Please attach details of donations made since inception/ 5. during last three years. Please attach details of donations received, including 6. corpus donation, received since inception/ during last three years. Please specify the category of charitable purposes 7. provided in section 2(15) of the Income

Gurjar Kalyan Parishad, Palwal vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1247/DEL/2018[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023

Bench: us, in view of the same, we are constrained to decide the appeal after hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of the material available on record.

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80I

Association. It is further pertinent to mention that the main source of income of the applicant is only donations and that too only corpus donation with the specific direction for construction of Gurjar Bhawan which in present case as has been demonstrated in the preceding para is to be constructed ... generated without any overt specific purpose. Perusal of balance sheets reveals that the applicant society has accumulated large funds to Rs. 2.09 Crores through corpus donation and increased the fixed assets to Rs. 1.96 Crores and has not incurred any expenses towards stated objects. It has been given the colour

Yadav Kalyan Samiti, Faridabad vs. CIT Exmptions Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2052/DEL/2021[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Vadakke Madham Brahmaswom, Thrissur vs. The ITO, Exemption Ward, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 839/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shrimanomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Preetha Nair, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. J. M. Jamuna Devi, SR. DR

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 143(3)

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NAFC) vide it’s order dated 30.05.2022. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., whether the corpus donation received by the assessee-trust qualifies to be so, so that it is not liable to be, for its exemption from tax, applied u/s.11 ... hand, claims the purpose of the grant, i.e., for maintaining and renewal of old building, as itself sufficient for it being construed as a corpus donation. Alternatively, it claims for the remedial course inasmuch as it had, though belatedly on 21.12.2019, applied for accumulation, i.e., in excess of 15%, which

Gujrati Mahamandal Hati Bhata, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ajmer

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

ITA 810/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Saliga, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10Section 11

discretion of Management but it has been controlled by Head of the institution for the welfare of students only. 5. That the disallowance of corpus donation of Rs. 108340/ Received From Manju Mittal (Rs 22500/-), Ram singh (Rs 34880/-) and Maitra saraswat (Rs 51000/-) is quite wrong and unjustified ... seen that appellant had failed even to furnish 7 GUJRATI MAHAMANDAL VS ITO (EXEMPTION), AJMER complete address of the person from whom corpus donation of Rs.1,08,340/- was claimed to have been received by the appellant. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,08,340/- made by the AO is hereby

Shri Osham Jain Temple Trust, Rajkot, at . Patanvav, Taluka Dhoraji, Dist. Rajkot vs. The CIT-(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

In the result, the matter is being set-aside to the file of the CIT(E) with the aforesaid directions

ITA 116/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16 considering the fact that during the course of original assessment proceedings the issue of corpus donation has been examined by the learned Assessing Officer. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad ought to have accepted the original assessment carried ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”). The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny with the reason to examine open “large corpus donation received by the assessee trust” and thereafter assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 02.05.2017 determining total income

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 134/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhary (Jm)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12A

assessment year 2016-17. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on the following issues:- (a) Assessment of Corpus Donations as regular income of the assessee. (d) Disallowance of claim for depreciation u/s 11(6) of the Act. 2. The facts relating to the case ... income u/s 11 of the Act. 2 Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay 3. The AO noticed that the assessee has claimed certain donations as “Corpus donations” and accordingly claimed the same as exempt. According to the AO, the receipts and application of income shown in the computation of income

ITO (E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Sangit Kala Kendra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands dismissed

ITA 773/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryito-2(3), Versus Sangit Kala Kendra, Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, 1St Floor, 159,Industry Mtnl Building,Cumballa Hill House,Padmabhushan Mumbai-400026. H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate Reclamation, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaats1345J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Ms. Mini Vinod, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 250

consideration, the assessee had received the amount of Rs. 38,00,000/- on account of “Life Admission Membership Fees” which the assessee claimed as “Corpus Donation” and therefore for justification of the same the Assessing Officer (AO) issued various notices to the Assessee. 3 ITA No. 773/Mum/2023-Sangit Kala Kendra ... Assessee failed to submit the most important criteria document i.e. Declaration from the donors regarding specific direction for use of the funds as “Corpus Donation” and remained silent and not furnished any reply and supporting documents regarding the specific queries made regarding specific direction for donation to be considered

Lok Bharti Mandal, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 212/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.212/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Hearing) Lok Bharati Mandal, Vs. The Ito, Bharatia Vidhya Sankul, Opp. Terapanthi (Exemption) Ward, Bhavan, City Light Ropad, Surat. Surat – 395007. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatl2524Q Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 04/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2023

Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)

raised by the assessee are as follows: “(I) Denial of benefit of section 11(1)(d) on Rs.51.38 lacs received as earmarked funds being corpus donation: 1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the concept of corpus donation as envisaged u/s.11(1)(d) as interpreted by the courts ... failed to appreciate that earmarked funds constitute corpus donation. ITA 212/SRT/2023/AY.2008-09 Lok Bharti Mandal 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the following earmarked funds as corpus donations. New Building Fund Rs.2,38,850 Room Donation Account Rs.6

Kakatiya Sangham, Tanuku vs. Incpme Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tanuku

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kakatiya Sangham Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.4-348 Ward-1 Bypass Road (Chivatam) Tanuku Tanuku, West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Aaatk7209H] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Condonation Of Delay : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1043166326(1) Dated 25.05.2022 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13, Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) Dated 23.09.2014 With The Delay Of 183 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay, Submitting That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Was Passed

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

knowledge in operating the computer. The Ld.CIT(A), NFAC confirmed the addiiton of Rs.24,55,696/- made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of corpus donations. The matter came to his notice in the process of recovery of the outstanding demand, when the income tax officer called his Chartered Accountant ... justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.24,55,696/- made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of exemption claimed in respect of corpus donations. 3. Any other grounds may be urged at the time of hearing. 5. Ground No.1 and 3 are general in nature, which do not require specific

Navjeevan Charitable Society for Integral Development, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ( Central), Ludhinana

ITA 25/ASR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

received in cash. However, there is no evidence submitted by assessee as to how does there amounts received does qualify to be included into corpus donations within the meaning of section 11(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 06. Further, it is also observed from the records that huge ... above, it is evident that while passing the order u/s 143(3) dated 29.10.2018, the then Assessing officer has not verified the source of corpus donation majorly received in cash during the year. The order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

A.L. Memorial Charitable Trust, Near Tempo Stand, Sanganer, Jaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in

ITA 198/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

question of providing self-certified annual accounts of last 3 years do not arise for consideration. In fact as on 31.03.2022 it only received corpus donation of Rs.51,000/- as evident from the trust deed and the same was lying in the bank as depicted in Form No.10AB. Further since

Shree Hazarimal Somani Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT Exemption Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 104/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104, 2297 & 2298/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR

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

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in restricting the disallowance made by the AO on account of Corpus Donation of Rs. 47,96,726/-, expenses for purchase of additional fixed assets of Rs. 1,14,69,794/-, donation

ITO (E), Ward- 2(3), New Delhi vs. The Managing Committee of Shivala Apa Gangadhar, Delhi

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the petition under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 226/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं .I.T.A No. 226/Del/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (E) The Managing बनाम Committee Of Shivala Vs. Ward : 2 (3) Apa Gangadhar, Near Red Fort, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110 006. Pan No. Aaatt7829A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, Adv

Section 11(1)(d)

dated 10.10.2017 for assessment year 2014-15 in treating Golak receipts in temple, temple building fund 1 ITA. No. 226/Del/2018 and Hundi Golak as corpus donation. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment noticed that assessee claimed an amount of Rs.2,47,33,537/- as corpus donations details of which ... received towards temple building fund and amounts on account of offerings in Hundi Golak specifically inscribed donation towards building fund and interest thereon, as corpus donations eligible for exemption under section 11(1)(d) of the Act observing as under:- “5.1 Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 3 challenge

Aspiring to Nuture the Smile of Humanity Ansh, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 448/JPR/2022[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2023AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Runi Pal ( Addl. CIT)

Section 12A

from the owner of the premises from where the institution is operating along with proof of his ownership (electric bill), details of donations including corpus donation received since inception, bank account statement since the opening of bank account, a note specifying the main area of charitable activities etc. These letters

Balaji Temple Trust, Srikakulam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 204/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sri Balaji Temple Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajam, Srikakulam Exemption Ward [Pan : Aamts4258G] Visakhapatnam (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari,Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.03.2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2023 : आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044994193(1) Dated 29.08.2022, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U//S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Religious Trust, Which Was Granted Registration U/S 12A On 10.07.2014. The 2

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari,ARFor Respondent: Shri O.N.Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)

I.T.A. No.204/Viz/2022, A.Y.2013-14 Sri Balaji Temple Trust, Srikakulam assessee filed it’s return of income for A.Y.2013-14 on 19.08.2014, declaring voluntary corpus donation of Rs.21,69,327/-. The return of income was processed by CPC and the voluntary corpus donations received of Rs.21,69,327/- was added to the income ... registered u/s 12A during the A.Y.2013-14. Subsequently, the assessee had filed a petition u/s 154 and submitted all relevant material with respect to voluntary corpus donations which were examined by the Assessing Officer (AO) and there was no dispute or objection with regard to the nature and genuineness

Shri Labdhi Vikram Shashan Trust, Mumbai vs. The Ld AO-Assistant Diretor of Income Tax at Centrlaized Processing Centre-CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 41/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Labdhi Vikram Shashan Trust 2, Ashok Bhavan, Liberty Garden, Road No. 3, Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064 Pan: Aaatl1998A ...... Appellant Vs. The Ld. A. O. Assistant Director Of Income Tax-Cpc Bangalore, Karnataka-560 100 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR

Section 10BSection 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

bonafide and condonable and hence denial of exemption u/s. 11 is bad in law. 2) The Learned CIT (A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that corpus donation i.e. tied up funds of Rs. 58, 13,455/- is not income and hence addition of Rs. 58, 13,455/- may be deleted ... Learned CIT (A)/NFAC erred in not adjudicating that corpus donation i.e. tied up funds of Rs. 58, 13,455/- is not income and hence addition of Rs. 58, 13,455/- may be deleted. 3) The Learned CIT(A)/NFAC failed to appreciate that if voluntary contribution

Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-53, Mumbai

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

ITA 135/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay-Trust Plot No.185, Shree Ayyappa Temple Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaata0312K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A), 53 634, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

application in such case where the assessee had disclosed donations as its income. It was also not disputed that all receipts, other than corpus donations, would be income in the hands of the assessee. If there is full disclosure of the donation for whatever purpose and that the registration under ... case because the assessee had in fact disclosed the donations 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, therefore, full disclosure of income by the assessee and application of the donations

The Guru Govind Singh Educational Society, Moga vs. The Income Tax Officer, Moga

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 344/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

their names and addresses as required by the assessing authority and all the donors had also admitted before the assessing authority that they made corpus donation supported by the affidavits along I.T.A. No.344/Asr/2016 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 with relevant evidence of donation made by them to the society ... opposed to facts and law and circumstances of case. 5. Ld CIT (A) completely ignored the facts, supported with decided case law that corpus donations are capital receipts and confirmation of addition is bad in law. 6. That order pass by Ld CIT (A) is bad in Law.” 3. Brief