BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

59 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 139(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka451Mumbai303Delhi251Chennai197Bangalore139Kolkata98Pune91Ahmedabad89Jaipur84Hyderabad75Chandigarh60Cochin59Lucknow33Indore31Amritsar28Allahabad21Calcutta18Nagpur15Cuttack15Rajkot15Surat12Visakhapatnam11Dehradun9Jodhpur8Telangana8Agra7Raipur5Patna4Ranchi4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Varanasi3Guwahati2Punjab & Haryana2Panaji2SC2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 11100Section 12A98Section 139(1)43Addition to Income40Exemption33Charitable Trust27Section 14820Section 143(1)15Section 1315Section 143(3)

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

13
Section 14712
Depreciation9

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

Charitable Institute (363 ITR 230) (Kar.) 5.4 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is any violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, it is to be proved by the Revenue only and without proving it, exemption u/s. 11 of the Act cannot be denied. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 443/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 21A

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

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST. JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 442/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 21A

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

ITA 901/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(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

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

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

ITA 1072/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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.

For Appellant: Shri. G Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

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)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

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

ITA 423/COCH/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Chacko, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 12Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144

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

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 304/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SRI.JOSE THOMAS, ADOOR

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 55/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 31/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

1. The CIT(A) erred in making an addition of Rs.27,84,000/- to the income of the Trust which was assessed on a protective basis in the hands of the trust and on a substantive basis in the hands of the trustees. 2. The CIT(A) was wrong in upholding the denial of exemption