DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST. JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the said previous year. 10. From a reading of the order of the CIT(A) it would manifest that the CIT(A) had granted exemption u/s. 11 by holding that provisions of sub-section (9) of section 13 are not applicable to religious charitable trusts

VISHWAKARMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , EXEMPTION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvishwakarma Dy. Cit (Exemptions) Educational Trust Aayakar Bhavan 14, Ulloor Lane Peroorkada Road, Kowdiar Vs. Dpi Junction, Jagathy Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Trivandurm 695014 [Pan:Aaatv1824D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Contesting The Processing Of It’S Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19,By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Nfac, Delhi) [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 25.7.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered U/S. 12Aa Of The Act, Filed It’S Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.8.2018 Declaring Nil Income, I.E., Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 On The Entirety Of It’S Income. The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act, Denying It The Benefit Of Section 11 Of The Act, I.E., At An Income Of Rs. 13,34,692. The Denial Of Exemption Was For The Reason Of Non-Audit Of It’S Accounts And, Consequently, Non-Filing Of The Audit Report, Required To Be Filed In The Prescribed Form (Form 10B), Along With The Return Of

charitable trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act, filed it’s return of income for the relevant year on 28.8.2018 declaring nil income, i.e., claiming exemption u/s. 11 on the entirety of it’s income. The same was processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, denying it the benefit of section 11 of the Act, i.e., at an income

ALL INDIA SPICES EXPORTERS FORUM,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, ERNAKULAM

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

Bench: The Expiry Of Time Allowed U/S 139(1). As Per Section 11(2), As Applicable For Ay 2014-15 There Was No Date Specified As To The Period Within Which The Form Has To Be Filed For Availing Exemption. The Amendment In Section 11(2) That Filing Of Necessary Forms Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As A Pre-Condition To Claim The Exemption Under Section 11(2) Was Substituted By The Finance Act With Effect From 01.04.2016 Which Is Not Applicable For Ay 2014- 15. Hence The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Denying The Exemption.

trust or institution. xx xx xx xx Further, as per the existing provisions of said section, the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file return of income under sub-section (4A) of section 139, if the total income without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable

ST JOSEPHS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

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

charitable trust, did not file a return of income under section 139(1) for AY 2014-15, but filed one in response

M/S MAHAKAVI EDASSERI SMARAKA TRUST,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) 0, Kumkumam, Kanattukara Thrissur Vs. Thrissur 680001 [Pan:Aadtm8374N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11(1)(a) of the Act in the absence of any application of its income for it’s objects by the assessee, a charitable trust, during the relevant year. We see no reason for it being not so, and neither has any been stated by the Revenue at any stage. The language of the provision is unambiguously clear

SACRED HEART PUBLIC SCHOOL KOTTAYAM,KOTTAYAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeal and the stay application filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

charitable trust duly registered under the Trust Act. It is also registered u/s. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). No regular return of income 2 ITA No. 423/Coch/2025 & SA No. 61/C/2025 Sacred Heart Public School was filed under the provisions of section 139(1

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. KERALA PROVINCE OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE CARMELITE SISTERS OF ST TERESA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

trust made cash deposit of Rs. 2,70,90,335/- and interest of Rs. 8,78,586/- was earned and made term deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- with banking companies, formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response to the notice the appellant filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM vs. KERALA PROVINCE OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE CARMELITE SISTERS OF ST TERESA, COCHIN

In the result, the appeals filed by Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

trust made cash deposit of Rs. 2,70,90,335/- and interest of Rs. 8,78,586/- was earned and made term deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- with banking companies, formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant. In response to the notice the appellant filed

S N D P YOGAM KOZHENCHERRY UNION,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant trust made cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) to the extent of Rs. 17,92,645/-, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant

S N D P YOGAM KOZHENCHERRY UNION,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ITO, WARD 2, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

139(1) of the Act was filed by the appellant. Subsequently, based on the information that the appellant trust made cash deposit in specified bank notes (SBN) to the extent of Rs. 17,92,645/-, the AO formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the appellant

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

charitable trust founded with the object of imparting education. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1

GOOD SHEPHERED CENTRAL SCHOOL TRUST,THRISSUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

charitable trust founded with the object of imparting education. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1

SREE NARAYANA PUBLIC,KARUNAGAPALLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sree Narayana Public School .......... Appellant Pavumba, P.O., Karunagapplly 690574 [Pan: Aants1510Q] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Alappuzha .......... Respondent

charitable trust incorporated under the provisions of Trust Act. It was found with the object of running a school. No regular return of income for AY 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139(1

THE UNITED CLUB,KORATTY SOUTH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

charitable institution registered under Section 12A is not correct. In any view of the matter the authorities below ought to have considered the operations of the Petitioner and seen that there is no taxable income. Merely because the Petitioner has chosen to file its return in ITR 7 should not be a ground to treat entire receipts as taxable

THE NEHRU MEMORIAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,KANHANGAD vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, KANNUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable purposes [cl.(iia)]. The second aspect of the matter is if, as claimed, the entire gross receipt can be brought to tax, which can, by definition, only extend to income, i.e., net of expenditure there-against. A perusal of the Income & Expenditure Account for the year reveals the assessee to have in fact incurred an excess expenditure over income

M/S.FILM DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT (EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

1. The Order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is against facts and law 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is not correct in denying the exemption under section 11 on the ground that the audit report under section 11 was not uploaded in the portal along with the return of income. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals