“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

Indrayani Seva Samiti Nyas, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 828/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 56(2)

addition of capital receipt of Rs.11,00,000 u/s 56(2) of the Act that was received by the assessee trust as a corpus fund towards the construction of hostel building for orphan girls. He failed to appreciate the facts, the detailed submissions as well as the law in this

Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1528/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicialmember (Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80G(5)(vi)

institutional membership fees of Rs. 22,57,100/-; and award fund of Rs. 50,000/- as capital receipt a part of corpus fund. He submitted that during assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has rejected the claim of the assessee and proceeded to treat the above fees are voluntary and revenue ... brought to our notice Rule no. 2(ii) life membership. It was specifically indicated that life membership fee shall be part of the corpus fund of the society. Similar modification was also made in rule 2(v). Therefore, he submitted that the issue under consideration is settled in favour

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

scheme for promotion of investment in Agricultural and Rural sector. (ii) The scheme has been set up within the assessee herein. (iii) Initial corpus fund for WDF has been contributed by the assessee, MoA and GOI. The details of contribution made for TDF is not available. Contribution

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2522/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

income from Fixed Deposits and savings account and voluntary contributions from MCX is not a business income but such contribution from MCX was towards corpus fund and thus proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in the assessee's case despite the fact that the objects of the trust

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3198/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3197/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Multi Commodity Exchange Investor Protection Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3195/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3198/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

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

Bholaram Education Society, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemp., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1895/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19 Bholaram Education Society Vs. The Dcit, Cir.1 C/O. Delhi Public School (Exemption) Ambapur Village Ahmedabad. Nr.Koba Circle Koba Adalaj Link Road Gandhinagar 382 007. Pan : Aaatb 8415 E (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Mehl K. Patel, Advocate : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/11/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Mehl K. Patel, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.3,10,50,000/- being the amount of alleged wrong claim of corpus fund as application of income without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case and the elaborate submissions and evidences filed before

National Culture Fund, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemp

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

ITA 2722/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11(2)Section 12A

whether ‘interest from deposits as specified u/s 11(5) of the Act’ amounting to Rs.3,35,31,966/- was part of the Corpus Fund as per Gazette notification establishing National Culture Fund published by Authority Department of Culture vide Notification dt. 28.11.1996, contributing Rs. 17.5 crore to the asset ... Fund (Corpus Fund) out of plan budget of the Department of Culture, Government of India, and that Auditor of National Culture Fund overlooking the said document treated interest on FDR made out of said Fund as income exempt u/s 11 while as per said notification, the said interest of Rs.3

National Culture Fund, Fifth Floor D-Block vs. AO Ward-Exempation-2(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2721/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11(2)Section 12A

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1266/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE MRS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bengaluru vs. DCIT-(Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 1265/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE “A” BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE MRS. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

Batanagar Education and Research Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 848/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

that assessee Trust had furnished inaccurate particulars of receipt of Rs. 2,45,29,550/-. Accordingly, depreciation not allowed on the ground that total corpus fund amounting to Rs. 2,45,29,550/- which had been proved to be bogus donation and nothing but mere accommodation entries had been declared

Global Alumni Association of Bengal Engineering and Science University, Shibpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 852/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 852/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharaya, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Sectio 139(4A) of the Act. b. Certain expenses amounting to Rs.13,96,826/- incurred out of the corpus funds were incorrectly treated as application of income. c. The accumulation of 52,06,495/- u/s 11(2) of the Act was to be disallowed since form no.10 was filed after ... Therefore, the proposed disallowance u/s 11(2) of the Act as alleged by ld. CIT (Exemption) was not correct. c. The application of corpus funds for charitable purpose was correctly accounted for as application of income, and, ld. CIT(Exemption) interpretation of Section 11(1)(d) was incorrect

Airoli Sports Association, Navi Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

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

ITA 3489/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran: A.Y : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act in respect of corpus/membership fees of Rs. 58crores received towards the Corpus Fund of the assessee. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred confirming the view ... CIDCO Ltd., for development of a Sports complex. In order to augment the funds required for that purpose, the assessee-trust proposed to collect corpus fund from its 3 members. In the return of income, the corpus donations were claimed as exempt u/s.11(1)(d) of the Act. 4. During

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

material Ann/JCE/ANJ/ED/S-1 that the assessee received unaccounted capitation fee of Rs.15,25,59,500/- by way of demand draft and treated the same as 'corpus fund'. The Managing Trustee of the assessee trust, Shri. Babu Manoharan in the course of his sworn statement on 13.07.2020 and 20.07.2020 receipt of Rs.15

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. M.R.S. Shri Prannath Parnami Education Society, Haryana

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 253/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.253/Chd/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Asstt. Commissioner Of बनाम M.R.S. Shri Prannath Income Tax, Exemptions, Parnami Education Society, Circle-2, 20Km Stone, Chandigarh Rajgarh Road, Vpo Choudhariwas Hisar 125001 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aabam1046N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By :Sh. Kapil Goyal, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2024 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2024 आदेश/Order Per A.D. Jain: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14.01.2024, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 133(6)

facts of the case.? 2. Heard. 3. Apropos Ground No.1, during the year, the Assessee has shown addition or Rs. 335,42,110/- in Corpus Fund which was directly taken to the balance sheet The A.O., on sample basis, issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to 8 donors