“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

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

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

relevant part of the order by the ld. CIT(A), confirming the impugned disallowance, reads as under: 4.1 Ground No.1 related to addition of Corpus fund consists of School Development Fund Rs.70,80,700/- and Welfare Fund Rs.31,31,850/-. The AO in his/her assessment order made this addition

Upinder Kaur Khalsa Rao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 35(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3670/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: 27.02.2024

Section 148Section 2(24)

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle-1, Unity Building Annex vs. Mymul Raitha Kalyana Trust, Siddarathanagar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 923/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

report from the AO in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. 16. Facts of the issue are that the assessee received a corpus fund of Rs.4,34,13,684/- and claimed exemption on the same on the reason that such donations are used towards the activities ... such donation is given should be specified and hence the requirement of the section shall be satisfied once the donation is specifically for the corpus fund. Accordingly, the CIT(A) granted the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 17. The ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) not verified the records

Maa Bhagwati Charitable Trust, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO (Exemption Ward), Ghaziabad

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2123/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)

stating that in the absence of Registration u/s 12AA, no exemption u/s 11 can be granted and upholding the addition closing balance of Corpus Fund Rs. 33,32,646/- without considering that Rs. 28,11,371/- is opening Balance and only Rs. 5,21,275/- received during ... Corpus Donation of Rs. 5,21,275/- has been received during the year and rest Rs. 28,11,371/- is the opening Balance of Corpus Fund which is duly shown in ITR-7 in Schedule- J and also submitted before him. However, ignoring this fact, upheld the addition

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur vs. Padmavati Institute for Medical Education & Science Trust, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 273/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

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

section 13(1)(c)(3) of the Act. The confirmation of the donor was filed by the assessee during the assessment proceeding. But this corpus fund was duly rejected by invoking sections 11 and 11(1)(d). Accordingly, for the violation of section 11(1)(d), the foreign contribution amount ... Jain as donor. It is also mentioned that the entire repayment of loan is not accepted, so, violation of section 11(1)(d) the corpus funds correctly added back with the total income of the assessee. The ld. DR fully relied on the order of the assessing authority

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur vs. Padmavati Institute for Medical Education & Science Trust, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 272/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

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

ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jodhpur vs. M/S. Padmavati Institute for Medical Education & Science Trust, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 462/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

Sampat H. Bharati, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2581/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250

also issued to the Assessee in response to which, the Assessee filed its reply dated 09/11/2018 and mainly claimed that corpus fund could not be treated as revenue receipt. Though such claim was considered by the Assessing Officer, however, the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessee being a member

Shri Ram Krishna Ramdev Sewa Sanstrhan, Vidisha vs. The CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 407/IND/2022[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023

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

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

donations including donations from the members of the assesse society for construction of the building and therefore, the same is part of the corpus funds of the assesse society. 3. As regard the second objection of issuing form 10BE the Ld. AR has submitted that the form 10BE were issued

Shri Ram Krishna Ramdev Sewa Sanstrhan, Vidisha vs. Yhe CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 406/IND/2022[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023

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

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

ACIT Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs. Financial Inclusion Trust, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2001/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 263Section 80G

capital funds as the funds can be used for fulfilling specific objectives for which these funds are constituted and hence to be treated as corpus funds and to be excluded from computation of Income. 6.5. The ITAT, Bangalore in ITO v. Vokkaligara Sangha in a decision reported ... contributions received for a specific purposes cannot be regarded as income u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act since they were capital receipts being corpus fund and tied up grants for specific purposes. 6.6. In the instant case, the A.O., in his Assessment Order, has not doubted/disputed the nature

Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Office(It)-3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2952/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dhanesh Jyotindra Vs. Ito (It) – 3(1)(1), Kothari,A-Wing, Flat No. Air India Bldg, 6, Mahavir Krupa, Nariman Point, Vallabh Baug Lane, Mumbai-400021. Extn. Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai-4000077 Pan/Gir No. : Adapk9004H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 147 R.W.S 144C & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri.Kirit.S.Sanghvi.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J.Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

Whereas the Assessing Officer (A.O) has received the information from the DDIT (I&CI), Mumbai that the assessee received Corpus fund from developer M/s. Dharmi Properties Pvt Ltd in the F.Y 2013-14, the ITA No. 2952 & 2951/Mum/2023 Dhanesh Jyotindra Kothari., Mumbai. Assessing Officer(A.O) after recording the reasons ... computation of income, bank statement and other details in support of return of income filed. Whereas the AO has dealt on the facts of corpus fund received from the developer by the assessee of Rs.4,59,506/- and claimed as capital receipt. The A.O has issued show cause notice dated

Mrs Pushpa R. Chawla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(2)(5), Mumabi

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

ITA 2864/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemrs. Pushpa R. Chawla V. Ito-Ward-23(2)(5) 143/B Wing, Nibbana Chs Room No. 116, 1St Floor Pali Hill Road, Bandra West Matru Mandir, Tardeo Mumbai- 400051 Mumbai- 400007

Section 143(2)Section 148

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

Alpine Technical Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO(E), Trust Ward -1(1), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 783/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 11Section 115BSection 143(3)

year under appeal the assessee had shown unsecured loan to the tune of Rs. 76,00,000/-; Rs. 64,00,000/- as corpus fund receipts and donations amounting to Rs. 85,81,760/- . Therefore, the AO called upon the assessee to explain the genuineness of the unsecured loan, corpus fund ... respect of the impugned additions. Learned DR submitted that by way of present appeal the assessee is challenging the additions made on account of corpus fund receipts of Rs. 64,00,000/- and addition of Rs. 85,81,760/- being the same received as donations being anonymous. Learned

Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3210/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

order of the AO denying the benefit of exemption u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act in relation to the interest earned on corpus funds. Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee, is noted to be without prejudice to Ground No. 4, wherein the assessee has claimed that ... directed to allow deduction for the expenses incurred out of the interest earned from such corpus funds. 48. The facts in brief are that, in the course of assessment, the AO observed that, the assessee had shown corpus donation which was exempt u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. Upon

Dy. Commissioner O Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust(Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3209/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3049/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3010/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh – Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr Kishor Dhule (CIT-DR)

Section 10Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 80G

M/S Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3801/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)

notices may be issued at the new address for getting information. 13. Under these circumstances, the genuineness and creditworthiness of the said donations and corpus fund contributions remaining unsubstantiated and the assessee having been unable to discharge his onus in this regard, despite sufficient opportunity having been given ... same, the said donations and corpus fund contribution are held to be non-genuine and actually the assessee used it as a device to introduce his undisclosed income. 14. As the above referred donations are not found genuine, therefore, it cannot be deemed to be income derived from the property

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)

same was owned by the society/trust. Copies of I.T. Returns for last three Asst. Years along with 16. computation of Income. Details of corpus fund and whether the same were with 17. any specific written directions. Copy of Receipt & Payment Account of the entity for last 18. three years along