“corpus fund”

Charitable TrustsSection 11(1)(d)Section 11(1)(d)337 judgments

The decision most relied on for corpus fund is CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (211 ITR 293), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on corpus fund

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

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).

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. Halai Namon Association (

330 ITR 24 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Profits generated from activities for the advancement of a general public utility (GPU) do not automatically qualify for exemption under Section 11 if the GPU is carried on as a business. Even if business profits are reinvested into charitable activities, the exemption under Section 11 will not be available.

New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association v. CIT

246 ITR 532 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Before registration is granted under section 12AA, all voluntary contributions, even those designated as corpus funds, are considered income of the charitable or religious trust.

CIT v. Trustees of Kasturbai Scindia Commission Trust

189 ITR 5 · 1991 · High Court

citing judgments

Voluntary contributions specifically received towards the corpus of a trust cannot be brought to tax as income. Funds created for specific objectives remain capital funds and are not to be pooled with normal income.

Provat Kumar Mitter v. CIT

41 ITR 624 · 1961 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Receipts stand diverted by an overriding title where an obligation to pay an amount is attached to the very source of income, rather than being a mere application of income.

Judgments citing corpus fund

Late Chitra Chakola, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1605/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Late Chitra Chakala Ito 24(1)(4) 102, Brighton Towers, 102, Brighton Towers, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400053. Mumbai- 400053. Pan: Aabpc5032H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Dedhia (supra), it is amply clear that where the assessee being a flat owner in a housing society receives certain sum from developer as corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section

Laxmikant H Renuke, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2762/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

area of 94.85 square meter (as against carpet area of 57.15 square meter held by her) and secondly cash compensation in the name of corpus fund, cost of transit accommodation and cost of shifting etc. The appellant offered Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,25,249/- only out of corpus ... party and consigning party for development of the society. In compensation assessee has received new flat with additional FSI and certain compensations which includes corpus funds, compensation towards shifting/re-shifting personal belongings and compensation towards cost for temporary transit accommodation, initially for a period of 24 months. The Ld. AR submitted

Mildred Ponnoth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (International Tax)-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

Ponnoth (supra), it is amply clear that where the assessee being a flat owner in a housing society receives certain sum from developer as corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section

Mp State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited, Bhopal vs. ACIT Bhopal, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 115/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

relied upon the orders of the authorities below and also pointed out that for A.Y.2018-19 the assesse has received an income from FDR of corpus fund and therefore, the interest income to the extent of Rs.88,66,003/- only is received from Bhopal Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Thus ... rejoinder the Ld. AR has submitted that since the complete details are not available at this point regarding the interest received on FDR of corpus fund therefore, this issue may be remanded to the record of the AO for proper verification about the nature of income and allowability of deduction

Mp State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Bhopal vs. ACIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 114/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

M/S Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan, Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 13(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 68

also the case that corpus donations defined in section 11(1)(d) of the Act necessitates presence of specific direction to that effect. Corpus fund as is commonly understood is a non diminishable fund that cannot be utilized in any other way except it adding to the capabilities

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 2045/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod, A/RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D/R

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iia)

Income Tax Act, 1961 being contribution received from Settlors namely, Government of India (GOI) and Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) towards Corpus Fund in terms of the trust deed and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to facts of the case, provisions of Income ... being voluntary contribution without appreciating the fact that agreed contribution towards corpus fund received by the appellant trust from GOI and SIDBI (i.e., the Settlors) is an obligation of Settlors as per the trust deed and hence, cannot be treated or added as voluntary contribution

National Cultue Fund, New Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward- 2(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 6349/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 11(5)(iii)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

establishing National Culture Fund which is published by Authority Department of Culture vide Notification dt.28.11.1996, contributed Rs. 17.5 crore to the asset of Fund (Corpus Fund) out of plan budget of the Department of Culture, Government of India, That Auditor of National Culture Fund overlooking the said document treated interest ... said Fund as income exempt u/s 11 while as per said notification, the said interest of Rs.1,12,77,278 is part of Corpus Fund and is exempt u/s 11(1)(d). The said notification could not be submitted before AO as well as CIT(A) as the assessee

Society of the Congregation of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(E), Circle -2, Mumbai

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

ITA 4747/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Society Of The Congregation Of The Asst. Cit (E), Circle 2(1), Franciscan Brothers, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 1, Mount Poinsur, Borivali West, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400103. Pan No. Aaats 1005 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. N Jayendran

Section 11Section 24

contribution was revised letter from the donors specifying that said contribution was revised letter from the donors specifying that said contribution was towards the corpus fund. The Ld. counsel for the assessee the corpus fund. The Ld. counsel for the assessee the corpus fund. The Ld. counsel for the assessee

Rajesh Ramesh Ranganekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2157/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Biyani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Mig Co-Op Housing Society Group II Limited, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 1923/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: S/Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Deep ChauhanFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

from different channels, that same was not permissible under byelaws of the society, that it had transferred a sum of Rs.2.97 crores from the corpus fund to the P&L account that such investment in banks would not qualify for deduction u/s.80P of the Act Finally he denied the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1202/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming exemption under section 11. The Appellant had inter-alia received donations forming part of corpus fund amounting to Rs. 2, 42, 95,651/-. The said amount was claimed as not chargeable to tax pursuant to the provisions of clause ... year under consideration. The Assessing Officer noted that all the donors have submitted confirmation letters to the effect that their donations were towards the Corpus Fund. The Assessing Officer, however, noted that no specific purpose of those donations to Corpus fulfilling the objects of the Trust. 6. We have gone

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Indian Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1150/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. AR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 151Section 250

M/S. Kodava Education Society, Ponnampet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

Assessee has sought for rectification of deduction U/s 11(1)(a) due to 9 Kodava Education Society the consequential changes in Contribution towards Corpus fund to be treated as exempt U/s 11(1)(d) of the Act as well as inadvertently declaring the Net Income from Mess. (iii) With regards ... other than corpus received by the assessee during the F.Y.2016-17 was Nil. However, during the F.Y.2016-17 the assessee had received Rs.70,01,601/- as Corpus Fund Donations but there had been an error in not disclosing the same in Return and not claiming deduction u/s.11

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle ( Exemption ), Nagpur vs. M/S Shri Dadasaheb Gawai, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 115BSection 12A

financials of the assessee, it had shown that the assessee has received corpus donation towards building fund at ` 4,36,30,500, and non–corpus fund at ` 8,96,20,600. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the list of the donors and all the relevant details

M/S Innovtive Microfinance for Poverty Alleviation, Chennai vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Chennai Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 164/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

financial assistances. On analysis of the balance sheet and accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration, it is found that the corpus fund for the year under consideration carry forwarded is Rs.50,000/- at page 37 in the balance sheet. General fund that has been carried forwarded from ... Rs.15.51 crores approximately and the loans advanced to SHG is Rs.38.60 crores approximately. This itself reveals that the entire money is sourced from corpus fund, general fund and loans and advances received by assessee during the year. 35. Coming to the objection of the Ld.DR that assessee has been charging

Nalni Sanjeev Nadkarni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1981/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 147Section 234BSection 274

Oriental Charitable Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

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

ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Kolkata . 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred coming to conclusion that utilisation of corpus fund of Rs.8,71,03,846/- represent claim of application of income, when the aforesaid 2 Oriental Charitable foundation ... claimed as application of income since the same was utilized out of corpus fund of the Trust. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata has erred in disallowing application of income of Rs.66,67,929/- which was made out of income

Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 373/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144B

issues are involved out of the grounds raised by the assessee : a) addition made by the Ld.AO on account of foreign contribution (other than corpus fund donation) received by the assessee amounting to Rs.16,70,155/-. b) addition on account of disallowance of provision for gratuity to employees and addition

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U