← 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

ITO, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ideal Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad

ITA 4257/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Ideal Institute Of Technology Society, 46, 1St Floor, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad. Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaati3380F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.91/2013-14/Gzb Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 22.03.2013 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Jcit, Range-2, Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act & Is Running Engineering, Mba & Mca Colleges. The Return Was Filed Declaring Nil Income. However, The Ld. Ao Completed The Assessment At Rs.10,93,79,835/- By Making Four Principal Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

claim of depreciation was disallowed. The case of the assessee is that the source of capital outlay is 67% funded from secured loans and corpus donations and 18% is from accumulation, only 15% from current year income application. It is also the assertion that the Society has been claiming expenditure

Sew Foundation, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.499/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Sew Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemptions), Ward 1(4) Pan:Aaats7433H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate V Siva Kumar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27/01/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1 Coimbatore, For The A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-5 Coimbatore, 27-01-2025 Is Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Advocate V Siva KumarFor Respondent: : Shri Vinodh Kannan, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 144Section 80G

learned CIT (A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.28,73,338/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of corpus donations. 3. The learned CIT (A) ought to have seen that details of registration of the organization u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G were available in return ... accounts were audited by C.A whose details are furnished in the return of income. Hence, , denying exemption u/s 11 to the Appellant and restricting corpus donations of Rs.28,73,338/- by the Assessing Officer is not justified on the ground that appellant failed to furnish the required information