← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Venkatesha Education, Bengaluru

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 455/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

tabulated below. Accordingly he included these items in the total income of the respective years :- Assessment Year Nature of receipt Amount 2008-09 Corpus Donations 38,04,550 2009-10 Corpus Donations 43,96,000 2010-11 Corpus Donations 15,38,000 2011-12 NIL NIL 2012-13 Grants received ... Bangalore Page 40 of 42 21.3 Since the AO has rejected the claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act, he has assessed the Corpus donation received by the assessee in the years relevant to AY 2008-09 to 2010-11 and also grants received in the years relevant

M/S. R N Shetty Trust, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 428/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Bengaluru, erred in upholding the addition of 6 Rs.10,33,439/- RS.33,57,500/- made on account of Corpus Donation by the assessing officer. Alternatively the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Bengaluru, ought to have held that 7 Rs.10 ... corpus donation is a capital receipt and the addition of Rs.33,57,500/- ought to have been deleted. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Bengaluru, 8 ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.2,013/- Rs.6,540/- made on account of sundry payments. The Honorable Commissioner of Income

M/S. R N Shetty Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Bengaluru, erred in upholding the addition of 6 Rs.10,33,439/- RS.33,57,500/- made on account of Corpus Donation by the assessing officer. Alternatively the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Bengaluru, ought to have held that 7 Rs.10 ... corpus donation is a capital receipt and the addition of Rs.33,57,500/- ought to have been deleted. The Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Bengaluru, 8 ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.2,013/- Rs.6,540/- made on account of sundry payments. The Honorable Commissioner of Income

Pryas Ek Pahel, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant society stands allowed

ITA 438/DEL/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Pryas Ek Pahel, Vs. Cit(E), Ca, Mr.Sahu, M Sahu& Chandigarh Associates, Ca, H. No. 651, Ff, Sec-10A, Near Meenakshi Public School, Gurgaon Pan: Aadtp0780F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri MR Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 12o

income as discussed above is paid, the application for registration u/s 12AA cannot be considered.” 6.1 The Ld. Commissioner considered the tax liability qua corpus donation which was not an issue before the ld. Commissioner for determination and acted like an Assessing Officer, which is not permissible as held

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2161/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2116/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1316/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1314/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had sold shares of Tata Consultancy Ltd., which were received as corpus donation in the earlier years. The capital gains realized were invested in redeemable preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred

Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

ITA 1035/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

assessee trust filed a return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee trust has obtained corpus donation from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18 and the assessee trust has shown development fee also as corpus donation received during the various years which ... invoking provisions contained under section 11(1)(d) of the Act proceeded to decide that the assessee trust has shown development fee as corpus donation received during the various years which is not permissible and thereby made addition of Rs.53,07,564/-, Rs.1,02,69,738/- and Rs.1

Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

ITA 1034/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

assessee trust filed a return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee trust has obtained corpus donation from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18 and the assessee trust has shown development fee also as corpus donation received during the various years which ... invoking provisions contained under section 11(1)(d) of the Act proceeded to decide that the assessee trust has shown development fee as corpus donation received during the various years which is not permissible and thereby made addition of Rs.53,07,564/-, Rs.1,02,69,738/- and Rs.1

Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

ITA 1033/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

assessee trust filed a return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee trust has obtained corpus donation from A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18 and the assessee trust has shown development fee also as corpus donation received during the various years which ... invoking provisions contained under section 11(1)(d) of the Act proceeded to decide that the assessee trust has shown development fee as corpus donation received during the various years which is not permissible and thereby made addition of Rs.53,07,564/-, Rs.1,02,69,738/- and Rs.1

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(xii)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee had stated that it was holding the shares of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., which was received by it as corpus donation. During the year under consideration, the assessee trust had sold these shares and re-invested the amount in preference shares of Tata Sons Ltd. During the year

ACIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, New Delhi

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

ITA 4188/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 115BSection 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80G

erred on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the amount of Rs.8,79,20,100/- out of corpus donations and RS.10,97,53,280/- out of other donations were anonymous donation within the meaning of section 115BBC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether ... exemption under section 11 and 12 has to be allowed. 4. AO noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received corpus donation and voluntary donations aggregating to Rs.28,13,57,624/- (corpus donation – Rs.16,13,94,776/-; voluntary donations – Rs.11,99,62,848/-). The assessee was required

Concern India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

assessment has been completed a perfunctory and routine manner without any verification, cross checks and even test checks. The total receipt of non corpus Donations of Rs.9,98,53,492/- and Corpus donation of Rs.19,92,430/- have been accepted without any verification, or confirmation from donors on test check ... revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act was objected to by the assessee. It was pointed out that assessee had indeed furnished the details of corpus donations as well as non-corpus donations before the ld. AO together with the details of total expenditure of Rs.12

Akhil Bhartiya Shree Vekunthnath Sewa Dharmarth Trust Vrindaban, Hisar vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

ITA 3133/DEL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarm/S Akhil Bhartiya Shree Commissioner Of Income Vekunthnath Sewa Tax (E), Dharmarth Trust C.R Building, Sector-17E, Vrindaban, Vs. Chandigarh-160017 H. No.1336-37, Sector-14P, Hisar, (Haryana) Pan-Aacta8982H Assessee Revenue

For Appellant: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the action of
Section 12ASection 2(15)

that the purchase of land and the subsequent construction of Temple complex thereof by the Trust had been sourced mainly from corpus donations; • that the corpus donations lacked specific directions; • that the corpus donations having been utilized by the Trust for the purchase of land and construction of building ... charitable act; • that corpus donations had not been obtained to be utilized right at the very outset of the activities of the Trust; • that corpus funds were permanent funds retained for the basic expenditure needed for the administration and survival of the Trust; • that the corpus funds are generally

The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore vs. M/S Stella Maris Church, Udupi

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

ITA 3272/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

filed on 02-03- 2017. The assessee had collected the above said amount under the head “Building Fund”. The assessee claimed the same as “Corpus donation” and accordingly claimed deduction u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. The A.O. noticed that the building fund is not reflected in the financial ... account. Hence, the AO held that the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of corpus donation collected in the name of building fund. Accordingly, the A.O. determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,46,87,092/- after rejecting exemption