“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions) Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Shiv Narain Sidheswar Mandir Bagh Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 633/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 633/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Dcit (Exemptions), Shri Shiv Narain Sidheswar Mandir Circle – 2, Chandigarh. Vs Bagh Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Gurudwara Road, Gurgaon. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacts6273M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Arjun Chaturvedi, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Virtual Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Chaturvedi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11(2)

case, have to be applied for charitable activities i.e. qua objects of the assessee. The only difference could be, whether it will go to corpus funds or other revenue requirements of the Institution in its day-today running but in any case, the lapse was not such for which A.Y.2018-19

Haryana Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Panchkula vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 237/Chd/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit, बनाम Circle 2, Vs. Exemption, Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.337 To 339/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29- 30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemption, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 63/Chd/2021 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Haryana Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, Bays No. 29-30, Sector 4, Panchkula, Haryana The Dcit बनाम Exemptions, Vs. Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaath6995H अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate, Sh. Ashok Goyal, Ca & Sh. Sifatfreet Singh, Ca राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals) For Different Assessment Years, As Per The Details Given Below: S.No.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

funds. 4. 8. Thus, the cess collected does not vest in the Board as its income or revenue receipt, but rather as an earmarked corpus fund, held in fiduciary capacity for the benefit of registered workers. It is a settled principle of law that receipts which are statutorily earmarked ... utility purposes are not liable to be treated as having earned taxable income, as the amounts so collected partake the nature of trust or corpus funds. 4. 9. Accordingly, the cess collections of the appellant-Board are basically linked to its statutory obligation and welfare objects, and therefore, must

Shree Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Jivrajpark, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 372/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT.DR

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(58)

incurred for religious purposes was in excess of 5% as provided in section 80G(5) of the Act since the funds received/ transferred to corpus funds are not income / expenditure for the purpose of section 80G(58) of the Act. It be so held now. 4. The ld CIT(Exemp

St. Joseph Capuchin Service Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad

ITA 1635/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 12Section 154

observing that no revised return was filed by the assessee as directed by the CPC classifying the Foreign Contribution of Rs.43,16,125/- in corpus fund and other than corpus fund." 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee a society registered u/s 12 of the Act filed

Siddharth Bhasker Shah, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax- 27, Mumbai ( Navi Mumbai)

ITA 2169/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, CA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54Section 54F

investment made by the assessee in each of the flats is also tabulated below. Apartment Sale Consideration Total (incl. Corpus SL No. Corpus Fund (Rs.) (Rs.) Fund

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

dismiss ground no. 1 to3 in AY 2018-19 also. 13. Coming to the additions made on account of alleged involuntary contribution to the corpus fund, we note that merely because the assessee wrote to the donors asking them to make donation towards the corpus, does not make these donations

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

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

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Sanjay Mehta, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

ITA 201/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69B

submissions of the assessee, the sale price of flat was Rs.5,95,00,000/-+ plus other expenditure i.e. Membership Fee, Annual Maintenance Charge & corpus fund and service Tax etc and accordingly, assessee claimed to make a payment of Rs. 6,20,99,361/- for the said flat. Further, for purchase ... break-up of which is as under: Particulars Basic Selling Price (Excluding service tax) Less: Rebate for impact assessment (Discount) Add: Corpus Fund Deposit (Rs.250 per sq. ft x 5,850 sq. ft) Add: Deposit for Maintainence (Rs.50 per sq. ft x 5,850 sq. ft) Add: Club membership Total

The Sai Man Education Society, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the instant assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3271/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON'BLE (Vice President)

For Appellant: Sh. Nitin Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 115Section 115BSection 68

further filed the copy of certified copy of Consolidated Balance sheet as at 31.3.2017 wherein, Rs. 26,25,000/- has been shown as corpus fund being received during the year and also copy of Consolidated Receipt and Payment account for the year ending 31.3.2017 showing Rs. 26,25,000/- being ... Capital account (corpus fund). The copy of two receipts issued to donor which establishes the payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- & Rs. 6,25,000/- received through banking channel on 16.11.2016 and 18.11.2016 respectively received from M/s PR Systems, B-702, Gandenia Green, Vashundhara, Ghaziabad UP 201012 having

ITO-23.2.1, Mumbai vs. Mig Co-Op. Housing Society Group II Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4576/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalincome Tax Officer, Ward – 23(2)(1) Room No.512, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400012 V/S Mig Co – Op Housing Society Group Ii Ltd., B-32, Kalpataru Sparkle, Mig Colony, ……………… Respondent Gandhi Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Pan : Aaaam8129P Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar Shri Surajsingh Devda Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 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

K.C. Social Welfare Trust (Regd.), Nawanshahr vs. ACIT Exemption, Circle-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1100/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1100/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.C. Social Welfare Trust (Regd.), The Acit (Exemption), K.C. Tower, Chandigarh Road, Vs Circle -1, Nawan Shahr. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatk6129L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajinder Kumar Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R Per Raj Pal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Kumar Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(C)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

Assessee was having following interest free funds on which no interest has been paid as per Balance Sheet annexed (PB-Page 1) i) Corpus fund Rs.13131000. ii) Reserve & Surplus Rs.35909740. iii) Students welfare activity fund Rs.28458653. iv) Building fund Rs.16558424. v) Unsecured Loans from trustees Rs.109650653. A.Y.2017-18 6 vi) Sundry

Juhi Bhandari, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (through VC)

Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

Sharad Kumar Bhandari, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

ITA 232/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (through VC)

Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

sale furnished by the assessee, the sale price of flat was Rs.2,08,00,000/-+ plus other expenditures i.e. Membership Fee, Annual Maintenance Charge & corpus fund etc and accordingly, assessee has claimed to make a payment of Rs.2,29,61,900/- through banking channels. Further, for purchase of flat following ... sale furnished by the assessee, the sale price of flat was Rs.2,08,00,000/-+ plus other expenditures i.e. Membership Fee, Annual Maintenance Charge & corpus fund etc and accordingly, assessee has claimed to make a payment of Rs.2,29,61,900/- through banking channels. Further, for purchase of flat following

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

submitted that prior to the amendment by Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01/04/2022, there was no such condition of investment of corpus fund in the mode provided u/s 11(5) of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Explanation 3A and 3B to section ... vide Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01/04/2022, the income from voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of corpus fund of the Trust or Institution shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the Trust/Institution. For ready reference, clause

Smt Veena Vijay Murkibhavi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4085/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234BSection 45Section 54Section 56

that the above receipt of compensation for hardship is in the nature of capital receipt. Further, we observe that assessee has submitted that the corpus fund received by her was already declared as additional income subsequently on receipt basis in A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer ... verify the same and if it is found proper, the addition on corpus fund may be deleted. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Ground raised by the assessee is allowed.” 7. Due to some rectifiable mistakes, a miscellaneous application was preferred by the assessee and this

Children Welfare Trust (Regd), Faridabad vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3637/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

Section 11(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

when these funds are used for the capital expenses as mentioned above, same would be treated as capital expenditure of the society. These are corpus fund and hence, in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, these may not be added as income of the assessee society ... when these funds are used for the capital expenses as mentioned above, same would be treated as capital expenditure of the society. These are corpus fund and hence, in the nature of capital receipts and therefore, these may not be added as income of the assessee society

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

shown as income. As the assessee has received the donations with the specific direction for corpus, the assessee has credited such donations as corpus fund u/s 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961. As submitted herein above, the corpus donations are held to be capital receipt. As such

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Varunarjun Trust, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

amount of Rs.3,64,97,000/- invested with Poddar Projects Ltd. (ii) Fee amounting to Rs.37,50,000/- received from students in cash. (iii)Corpus Fund Rs.9,95,000/- (iv)Development Fund Rs.1,07,74,500/- 3.6. In the cited case, the Co-ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal, vide

Dr K R Shroff Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 769/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

Limited and Siel Limited were received as corpus donation. These shares were sold and the amount received was credited to the bank statement as corpus fund. The assessee’s conduct of selling the shares was branded as colourable device. The co-ordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal had held that only