“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

Arvind Charitable Trust, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 301/COCH/2024[AY 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

explained in detail in the written submissions dated 10-12-2023 and 16-2-2024, that the appellant Trust has not received any corpus fund or the Trustees has not brought in to the appellant Trust any corpus fund even though it was decided by the Trustees to bring ... corpus fund totaling to Rs 61,37,740/- and the appellant Trust while filing the return of income for the AY 2015-16 had mistakenly shown Rs 61,37,740/- as voluntary contribution forming part of Corpus. 4. The CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the above aspect and held

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemption-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 179/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(iia)Section 250

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 3 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to facts ... making addition of Rs. 93,73,75,000/- u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act 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

Al Rasheed Charitable Society, Haryana vs. JCIT, Exemptions, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand for fresh decision in

ITA 843/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

expenditure Rs.90,11,684/- out of total expenditure amounting to Rs.1,80,23,368/-. iii) Addition of Rs.3,58,80,358/- claimed as corpus fund. iv) Disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.3,34,759/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also came

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Samsthan Gokarn Parthagali Jeevotham Math, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 49/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarvs. Shree Samsthan Dcit(Exemptions) – 2(1) Gokarn Parthagali Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Jeevotham Math Mtnl, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400031. Cumbala Hill, Mumbai – 400026. Pan/Gir No. Aaaas6210M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G(5)

been corpus donation with breakup of Rs.4,06,692/- towards Sashwat Seva fund and Rs. 2,02,89,523/- towards the earmarked corpus fund. The assessee claimed that the earmarked corpus donation and the Sashwat Seva fund were exempt from tax u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act. 5. During ... assessment proceedings, the AO found that there was no documentary evidence, which suggest that the donation towards earmarked corpus fund or Saswat Seva fund were collected from donors with specific directions from the donors. Which is a prime condition for treating such voluntary donations as corpus fund. Moreover

Shri Shri Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, Nagaur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1381/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarshri Shri Maa Anandmayee Kuchaman Trust, Kuchaman Fort Kuchamancity, Nava Nagaur- 341508 Pan No. Aamts6374D ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (E), Jaipur …...Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR, Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

same was received as donation, there must be a corresponding credit in the balance- sheet in the form of building fund or building corpus fund etc. C) Nature of Misc. Fixed Assets is also not very clear as in Annexure-4 it is shown as “Claims paid to Shiva Corporation

Ragigudda Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Bhakta Mandali Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2. (Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250

sought by the AO. From the documents, it was noticed that the total gross receipt is Rs.4,57,80,043/- which is inclusive of corpus funds of Rs.50,37,369/-. Further, on verification of the computation of income, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed an expenditure of earlier ... Nimishamba Trust in IT Appeal No.443 of 2009 Order dated 05.09.2011 and submitted that the Hon'ble Court held that the contribution made towards corpus fund would not be treated as inform for the purpose of levying of tax where even if corpus fund was misused, it could

Ragigudda Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Bhakta Mandali Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2. (Exemption), Bangalore

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

ITA 1082/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250

The Jyoti Co-Operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Ward, Nahan

In the result, the assessee is not eligible for deduction on interest on deposits placed with scheduled commercial banks under section 80(P)(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the appeal of the assessee is di...

ITA 162/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं . / ITA No.160, 161 & 162/ Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Jyoti Co-operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Sirmour, Solan, HP-173025 स्थायी लेखा सं. / PAN NO: AAABT1453G अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The ITO H.P Ward-Nahan, Sirmour प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet K

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

determining whether interest income was taxable under the head 'income from business' or 'income from other sources. Such differentiation between corpus or non- corpus funds is not mandated and stipulated in section 80P and for 4 determining the head of income; 'income from business or profession' or 'income from other

The Jyoti Co-Operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Ward, Nahan

ITA 161/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

The Jyoti Co-Operative Non Agricultural Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Sirmour vs. ITO, Ward, Nahan

ITA 160/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

Dr Ardeshir Jehangirshaw Kohiyar Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5114/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B R Baskaran: A.Y. : 2017-18 Sa No.105/Mum/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5114/Mum/2024)

For Respondent: Shri Suresh Periasamy, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 142(1)

such as a stream of income to support the receiving en"ty's objects and programs. • The endowment is to be treated as a corpus fund, the property and funds received to be invested, and the income received applied to the objects of the en"ty. 9. The word ‘corpus

Ramya Charitable Trust, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 61/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.61/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ramya Charitable Trust V. Ito (Exemption Ward) D.No. 9-11-130 Income Tax Office Elvinpeta, Kakinada – 533004 Aayakar Bhavan Andhra Pradesh Veerabhadrapuram Rajahmundry – 533105 [Pan: Aactr4315H] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144

Further, an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- given by Managing Trustee for the purpose of construction is in the nature of corpus fund and hence it cannot be considered as income of the assessee. We are therefore inclined to uphold the additions of cash donations received by the assessee

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT

Anjuman E Farogh E Islam Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5544/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri A.S. MithwaniFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

During the process of verification at the time of registration under section 12A of the Act, it was found that the assessee has a corpus fund of INR 16,49,600 for which the assessee has claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, proceedings under section 147 were

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 7/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma,CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(C)Section 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. vi) Sundry creditors

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. K.C. Social Welfare Trust, K.C. Tower

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rajinder Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma,CIT DR

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

Sandeep Mohanraj Singhi, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 769/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

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

Grene Robotics India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.152/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Nnf State Chapter Telangana, Income Tax Officer Vs. Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaean1771C Ward-1(2), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms. G. Saratha, Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 18/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Nnf State Chapter Telangana (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 20.11.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Anil Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. G. Saratha, SR-DR

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

society had organised a medical conference and ITA No.152/Hyd/2025 4 collected Rs.1,000/- from each participant, out of the participation fee, specifically towards a corpus fund for purchase of neonatal equipment to be installed at the hospital and to be utilised for the treatment of new born babies and neonate ... sample receipts placed at page nos. 110 to 189 of the paper book, on which a separate seal containing the words “Rs.1000/- towards corpus fund” has been affixed. The Ld. AR contended that such affixation itself signifies the intention of the donor towards corpus fund. The Ld. AR also submitted