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.

12,059 results for “disallowance”+ Section 13(2)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai12,059Delhi7,580Chennai3,748Bangalore3,633Kolkata2,452Ahmedabad2,089Jaipur1,307Hyderabad1,024Indore774Pune718Surat690Cochin547Chandigarh506Raipur380Visakhapatnam346Cuttack334Nagpur324Rajkot316Lucknow262Karnataka208Amritsar187Panaji154Jodhpur138Agra137Allahabad113SC106Ranchi96Patna76Guwahati74Telangana62Calcutta54Dehradun37Jabalpur35Kerala35Varanasi33Punjab & Haryana7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Orissa5Rajasthan5Himachal Pradesh4ANIL R. DAVE AMITAVA ROY L. NAGESWARA RAO1RANJAN GOGOI PRAFULLA C. PANT1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1MADAN B. LOKUR S.A. BOBDE1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)78Section 14A69Disallowance61Addition to Income59Deduction39Section 115J31Section 271(1)(c)22Section 80I22Section 26319Section 147

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

13(1)(c) was made without any cogent material. No personal benefit to any made without any cogent material. No personal benefit to any made without any cogent material. No personal benefit to any related party has been demonstrated. The conclusion is purely related party has been demonstrated. The conclusion is purely related party has been demonstrated. The conclusion

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

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

Showing 1–20 of 12,059 · Page 1 of 603

...
18
Section 4018
Depreciation16
ITA 5494/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

For Appellant: S/Shri Ronal Doshi a/w Deep ChouhanFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 24

section 13 of the Act, more particularly clauses (a), (b) and (g), invoked by the AO for disallowing the interest paid by the assessee, reads as follows: - “(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of clause (c) [and clause (d

SHRI KUMAR COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. JAO MUM -W-22(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5581/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shrikumar Co-Operative Housing Asst. Dir. Of I. Tax, Cpc Jao Mum- Society Ltd., W-22(3)(1), Vs. Nehru Road, Santacruz (East), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400055. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaaas 8110 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Salukhe. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Vidyadhar N. Khandekar, CA
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed in the above-mentioned order. mentioned order. 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The 5.2. The appellant has claimed deduction under Section 80P. The relevant part of the Act is being reproduced below: relevant part of the Act is being reproduced below: "80P(1) Where

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1 , THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT, MARYADT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

13,246. The AO while completing the assessment allowed a deduction of Rs.50000/- under section 80P(2)(c) but denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) which resulted in addition of Rs.1,63,246 towards income from other sources and Rs. 3,26,68,136 towards income from business. The AO also made an addition under section 69A towards

JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT ,PALGHAR vs. ITO, CIR-4 , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 918/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

13,246. The AO while completing the assessment allowed a deduction of Rs.50000/- under section 80P(2)(c) but denied the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) which resulted in addition of Rs.1,63,246 towards income from other sources and Rs. 3,26,68,136 towards income from business. The AO also made an addition under section 69A towards

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), THANE, THANE vs. JEEVAN VIKAS NAGRI SAHAKARI PATPEDI MARYADIT, VASAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are\nallowed

ITA 1961/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19
Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

13,246. The AO while completing the assessment\nallowed a deduction of Rs.50000/- under section 80P(2)(c) but denied the\ndeduction under section 80P(2)(d) which resulted in addition of Rs.1,63,246\ntowards income from other sources and Rs. 3,26,68,136 towards income from\nbusiness. The AO also made an addition under section 69A towards

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2885/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kukreja a/w Punit Shah
Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) section

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2884/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kukreja a/w Punit Shah
Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) section

MUMBAI KAMGAR MADHYAWARTI GRAHAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

ITA 2883/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Dinesh Kukreja a/w Punit Shah
Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed the same on the reasoning that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the that the assessee was a cooperative bank and, therefore, it was hit by the provisions of section 80P(4) section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

2), specific modes of investment/ deposits under section 11(5) and other related provisions of Section 13”. Satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no issues with respect to section 11 and 15, and he noted that the income derived from property held under trust, which included these investments, is covered by the exemption under

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

2), specific modes of investment/ deposits under section 11(5) and other related provisions of Section 13”. Satisfied with the details filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no issues with respect to section 11 and 15, and he noted that the income derived from property held under trust, which included these investments, is covered by the exemption under

RUSTOMJEE ASPIREE PREMISES CO-OP SOC. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 26(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rustomjee Aspiree Premises Co- Ito Ward 26(2)(5), Op. Soc. Ltd., Room No. 319, 3Rd Floor, Kautilya Vs. Ground Floor, Rustomjee Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, ‘G’ Block Aspiree, Cts No. 628, Ai, Pt Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Kurla, Eatern Express Highway, (East), Mumbai-400051. Sion, Mumbai-400022. Pan No. Aabar 4001 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(d)

disallowed deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act and in the deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a deduction claimed u/S 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act a light of the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the same light of the decision of the Supreme Court

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 220/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

ITO-26(2)(1) , MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 195/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 192/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 194/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

ITO-26(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SAI PRERANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 193/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 221/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

SAI PRERNA CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are In the result, appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are decided as under:

ITA 217/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 217, 220 & 221, 218 & 219, 215, 214/Mum/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 Sai Prerana Co-Op Credit Ito-17(3)(2), Society Ltd., Room No. 126, 1St Floor, Vs. 317, Puran Aasha Bldg, Gr. Fl. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Narashi Natha Street, Katha 43, G Block Bandra Kurla Bazar Masjid Bunder (W), Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 009. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadts 5638 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 139(1)

13. Thus, it can be seen that full details with respect to it can be seen that full details with respect to petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

disallowed. 4.14 Also in case of Span Foundation vs. ITO Delhi HC 178 Taxman 436 held that in case of alleged violation u/s. 13, benefit under section 11 would not be available only to this extent of application of income of property for the benefit of person referred to in section 13(3) 4.15 Conclusion In view of the above