← All Phrases

“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
73
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
48
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
42
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
33
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
26
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
20
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
17
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

Eswari Education Trust, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward 2, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Rs.1,60,31,093/- by disallowing exemption and consequently treated the entire application of income of Rs.89,31,093/- and the balance in the corpus fund of Rs.71 lakhs as income of the assessee (according to the assessee, the corpus fund of Rs.71 lakhs was inadvertently disclosed ... opening balance of the corpus fund as on 31.03.2021 [in Sl.No.A(i) of Schedule-VC (corpus fund definition) instead of Schedule-J (balance of the corpus fund as on the last day of the previous year)] as there was no clarity in disclosing the balance of the corpus fund

Income Tax Officer (Exemption) -2(3), Mumbai vs. Supreme Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 860/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer Supreme Foundation (Exemption) – 2(3) 612, Raheja Chambers, 617, Mtnl Building, 123, Nariman Point, Cumballa Hill, Dr. G. D. Mumbai – 400021. Vs. Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Pan: Aapts4997P Road, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: 08 . 10 . 2024
Section 11Section 12ASection 250Section 80G

during the assessment proceedings, has submitted that the donation of Rs. 2,83,50,000/- received from the supreme Industries Ltd. is towards non- corpus fund. However, the AO held that the nature of donation being received was on account of corpus fund.Further, the assessee trust has failed to discharge

Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust, Kozhikode vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 (1), Kozhikode

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

ITA 205/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 2

present case is a charitable trust, running medical college. The assessee in the year under consideration shown receipt of Rs. 50 Lakh toward corpus fund received from trustee which was claimed as exempted under section 11 of the Act. 2 Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust 4. However ... order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us submitted that the corpus fund cannot be treated as income of the assessee as the assessment for the year in dispute was pending at the time of registration under section

Al Rasheed Charitable Society, Jagadhari vs. DCIT Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh

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

ITA 573/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: This Tribunal. The Relevant Ay Is 2016-17 & Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054712149(1) 28/07/2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Act, Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

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/-. 3. The aforesaid assessment order of Ld. AO bears no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014465877

DCIT Circle 1(1), Trivandrum vs. M/S State Bank of Travancore Retired Employees Medical Benefit Scheme, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 401/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DRFor Respondent: --- None ---
Section 57

Travancore EMBS. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee received deposits from the employees of the bank and also received corpus funds from the bank and out of the interest received from the said amount through the banks, the assessee had paid medical claims made ... bank, who were in real need of the funds for taking care of their medical expenses, and therefore, the bank itself had contributed the corpus fund and the staff of the bank also contributed a fixed amount from their salary in order to avail the benefit after their retirement

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. Navratan Vidha Mandir Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

used for specific purpose Hence, the Tribunal has given the finding based on the fact that the said fee was not part of the corpus fund of the assessee Trust Accordingly, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this account 7.5 Furthermore the Delhi Bench ... held as capital and only applied for specific purposes then it can be said that there was a specific direction to treat it as corpus funds. The Court further held that the requirement is that the voluntary contributions have to be made with a specific direction. The law does

Dr. B.G. Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 680/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.680/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dr. B. G. Memorial Trust..…….…....…………….......…....………....Appellant 6/1, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue Rabindra Sarovar, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aaatd5235A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exempt, Kolkata...........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Registered As A Charitable Institution U/S 12 Of The Act. The Assessee Claimed Deduction Of Income Being A Charitable Institution U/S 11 Of The Act. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Cit(Exemption) Vide Order Dated 22.02.2016 U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Act Has Withdrawn & Cancelled Registration Granted Earlier To The Assessee-Trust. In View Of The Said Cancellation Of Registration, The

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 250Section 40Section 40A

figures were wrongly mentioned. Therefore, during the assessment proceedings, the revised balance sheet as on 31.03.2013 was filed, wherein, the opening balance of the corpus fund has been mentioned as Rs.4,48,23,001/-. On being asked to explain in this respect, the assessee explained that the accountant ... assessee inadvertently has taken wrong figure of the opening balance. It was demonstrated before the Assessing Officer that the closing balance of the corpus fund as on 31.03.2012 was the opening balance as on 01.04.2012, which was at Rs.4,48,23,001/-. It was also explained that the contribution

Shree Rajput Sabha, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

motive, exemption under s. 10(22) could not be denied on the ground that the assessee was collecting money by way of admission fee, corpus fund and loans from the parents of the students, more so as it is registered under s. 12A and exemption under

Brinda Jajoo, Punjab vs. ITO, Ward-51(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1298/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, and Shri Udit Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 64

assessee u/s. 64(1A) of the Act. She pointed that minor son of the assessee had interest income from advancing of loans from corpus funds he had received from his grandfather. He had also borrowed some funds on which interest was paid. The assessee had claimed netting of interest earned

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 64/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 57/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Pioneer Builders, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 56/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 54/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 53/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

D S R Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 51/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

DCIT., Central Circle-1(4), Hyderabad vs. Dsr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 50/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

D S R Infrastructureprivate Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 49/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiasl.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate for assessee at Sl.Nos.1 to 3For Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR

Prayas Ek Asha, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 634/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.N. Dash, JCIT
Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 250

learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.6,88,000/- being donation received by the Trust towards Corpus fund which is otherwise exempt. This was not justified and thus the same be deleted. 3) For that the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming

Tushar Mahendra Parekh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3216/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bhavesh Prafulbhai Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR
Section 143Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 41

Rs.1,35,10,887/- on account of disallowances u/s 41(i) and 41(a)(ia) of the Act and unexplained cash credit and corpus fund respectively to the tune of Rs.7,51,308/-, Rs.1,32,875/-, Rs.1,30,85,423/- and Rs.2,92,589/-. 4. The AO though not initiated ... tune of Rs.1,33,78,012/- (Rs.1,30,85,423/- on account of unexplained cash credits and Rs.2,92,589/- on account of corpus fund). 3 Shri Tushar Mahendra Parekh 8. Subsequently the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 in quantum appeal

Trimurti Pawan Pratisthan Versus, Ahmednagar vs. DCIT, Exem-Circle-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 51/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

learned Assessing Officer erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the facts that: i. Identity of donors were proved by individual letters of corpus fund containing name, address and PAN from the donors for donations received. ii. Genuineness of transaction was proved by submission of Bank statements and completion certificate