“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

Shree Hari Kirtanottejak Sabha, Pune vs. C.I.T (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2649/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iv)

have not submitted ledger account of donation receipts. You were specifically requested to furnish year-wise list of all donations received (including corpus donations etc.) during the last 3 years / since inception, whichever is later viz. name of donor, address of donor, amount of donation, mode of donation / receipts

Moinia Hasnia Abul Ulaya Shikshan Sansthan, Kota vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Lavish Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Page 2 of 5 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in treating the corpus donation amounting to ₹ 21,87,961 as income of the assessee in the absence of registration under section 12AA of the Act. 3. The necessary facts ... observing as under: “4.2 The ground no. 2 to 5 are against the adjustment made by the CPC by disallowing exemption of corpus donation received for building construction. The appellant has filed return of income u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the IT Act as it is not registered u/s 12AA

Marol Education Academy, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward - 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1575/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vipul ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

without appreciating the facts and submissions of the Appellant that the capital assets, on which depreciation was claimed, were purchased out of corpus donation of the trust and not from the recurring income of the fund and the claim of depreciation was fully allowable. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... behalf of the Assessee that the investments in the fixed assets in respect of which depreciation was claimed was made out of the corpus donations. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, by placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

Shree Mahaveer Research Foudation, Pune vs. DCIT(Exemption) (Hq), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 792/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.792/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Mahaveer Research V The Dcit(Exemption) Foundation, S (Hq), Pune. 1183/ C/O.Vijayraj Ranka, G C Jewellers, Raviwar Peth, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadts7800B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing. Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/05/2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 250

under consideration the assessee should have been granted u/s 11 of the Act. 4] Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in taxing the corpus donations as an income of the assessee without appreciating that the corpus donations were capital receipts and hence, the same could not be taxed ... total income of the assessee. 11. In view of the discussion Income as per income and Expenditure Account Rs. 10,64,466/- Add: Corpus donations received during the year Rs.22,08,407/- Total Income Rs. 32,72,873/- Less: expenditure claimed Rs. 2,56,774/- Total Assessed Income

Agrasen Medical Relief & Research Society, Jaipur vs. ITO(E), Ward-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

stating that the same is missing and at present not available. The AO, therefore, considered the amount of Rs. 64,60,842/- claimed as corpus donation as voluntary donation and included it in the total receipt of the year and did not allow the claim of capital expenditure ... income at Rs. 7,69,088/- computed as under :- Gross receipt including rental income as per I&E A/c 1,15,66,880 Add:- Corpus donation 64,60,842 TDS penalty 1,58,000 66,18,842 Total receipt 1,81,85,722 Less:- Expenditure

Akhil Bharatvarshiya Papeek Ashram Trust, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1185/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Copy of Projected Receipts & payments account submitted before the 106 ld. CIT(Exemption) 11. Copy of List of corpus donations 107-111 12. Copy of relevant donation slip 112 13. Copies of Invoices in respect of expenditure incurred by the trust 113-119 14. Copies of land registration documents

Akhil Bharatvarshiya Papeek Ashram Trust, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1184/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2025AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhilesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

Copy of Projected Receipts & payments account submitted before the Id. CIT(Exemption) 106 11. Copy of List of corpus donations 107-111 12. Copy of relevant donation slip 112 13. Copies of Invoices in respect of expenditure incurred by the trust 113-119 14. Copies of land registration documents

Dudhsagar Research and Development Association, Mehsana vs. The DCIT(E) Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1048/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT DR

Section 271(1)(c)

under the limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ignoring fact that full details are submitted in assessment proceedings regarding corpus donation. 3. Ld. NFAC ought to have considered fact that non acceptance of bona fide claim does not lead to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to penalty ... recording proper satisfaction.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that in it’s return of income, the assessee claim to have received “corpus donation” both from members as well as non-members of the association. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that these donations

L.G Kakadia Education & Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1914/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm L. G. Kakadia Education & Ito Exemption Ward 1 (4) Charitable Trust

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Chauhan (AccountsFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

dated 30.09.2019, where the ld. AO/CPC determined the total income at Rs. 1,11,47,376/- which constituted disallowance towards corpus donation (capital receipt) of Rs. 71,47,376/- and Rs. 40,00,000/- as application of income given for Jawan’s welfare and Police welfare aggregating

Haldiram Charitable Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption 1(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2459/DEL/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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

Rs.31 lakhs donated to M/s. Triveni Sewa Mission which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 24.09.2022 since representing a mere corpus donation than application of income, for the purpose of claiming section 11 exemption. 4. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands. The Revenue draws ... strong support from the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion holding the assessee’s impugned claim as not allowable since found to be a corpus donation from the books of account of the recipient M/s. Triveni Sewa Mission. It could hardly dispute the clinching fact that neither there

Shree Hari Kirt Anottejak Sabha, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 2569/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Atmaram VazeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

material A/DUU/01. Further there are certain letters as follows: (i) PB 1767 – Letter from A Murthy confirming the voluntary payment of Rs.50,000 towards corpus donation by cheque (ii) PB 1768 (duplicate of above) Letter from A Murthy confirming the voluntary payment of Rs.50,000 towards corpus donation by cheque ... Letter from B Rajashekhar confirming the voluntary payment of Rs.30,000 towards corpus donation by cheque. (iv) PB 1772 (Duplicate of above) Letter from B Rajashekhar confirming the voluntary payment of Rs.30,000 towards corpus donation by cheque. (v) PB 1777 – Letter from K Shantharam confirming the voluntary payment

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

Income Tax Officer (E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Vikat Educational Trust, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 394/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer M/S. Vikat Educational V. (Exemption) Trust T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C 32-A, Chandralok, Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Aliganj, Lucknow-226020. Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan: Aaecc5529M (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 2/Lkw/2022 (In Arising Out Of Ita. No. 394/Lkw/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Vikat Educational Trust Ito (Exemption) V. 32-A, Chandralok, Aliganj, 4Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Lucknow-226020. Bhawan, Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan: Aabtv6124D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shyam Lal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 05 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 115BSection 68

Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted hard copies of the requisite details. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee trust had received non-corpus donation of Rs.1,70,51,600/- from various persons. The Assessing Officer treated the same as unverified and made addition into the income

DCIT Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 225/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

case, despite of the fact that failure was on the part of assessee trust to provide a detailed list of donors for the corpus donation, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4,93,72,616/- which was made to the total income by considering ... verify the genuineness of the same hence the donation received amounting to Rs.4,93,72,616/- which are shown in the balance sheet towards corpus donation and immovable property fund are disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee trust. Accordingly the assessment was completed

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashriwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 224/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

Shri Vardhman Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh Ratnagiri, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2151/PUN/2024[AY 2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2151/Pun/2024

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

fixed deposit with Janata Sahakari Bank at Rs.3,36,148/-. Assessee has also received the building funds as part of the corpus donation which shows that the assessee trust is in the process of constructing building in the time to come. So far as the income for the year under

Eeswara Seva Samithi, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Exemption Ward-1, Hubballi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 440/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Shri Ramana Gowda S Gowdar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

Income & Expenditure account for 31.3.2024, has incurred only the expenditure of audit fees of Rs.15,000. Further, upto 31.3.2024 assessee has received corpus donation of Rs.50 lakhs, but has incurred expenditure of only 25,000 as audit fees and Rs.20,000 as consultation fee. Therefore

Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli vs. Hemla Trust, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 138/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

discounts to the schools. Further, the AO in the assessment order completed u/s.143(3) of the Act (order dated 27.12.2019) had also added corpus donation made by the assessee for a sum of Rs.2,41,00,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed, the assessee trust filed appeal before ... registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act as charitable organization engaged for the purpose of donation.” 4.2 As regards to the consequential addition of corpus donation made by the AO totaling to Rs.2,41,00,000/-, the CIT(A) held that the donation given by the assessee trust is nothing

Mohan Lal Krishan Avtar Rawat Memorial Charitable Trust (Bobas Wale), Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/JPR/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh