TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 444
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case are that the assessee Tripura Cricket Association (TCA), a State-level cricket association affiliated with the BCCI, is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and has been granted registration under Section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from 30.05.2012. For A.Y. 2017-18, TCA filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 and Form No. 10B on 23.10.2017 declaring NIL income and claimed exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply. The AO noted that the option to the exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 11 in respect of income of any previous year relevant to the AY beginning on or after the 1st day of April 2016 shall be in Form No. 9A and shall be furnished before the expiry the of the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing return of income of the relevant AY. The assessee did not furnish Form No. 10B within the time allowed u/s 139(1), for furnishing return of income. A SCN was issued to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s corpus in nature. The assessee failed to furnish the copy of agreement between assessee and BCCI which forms the basis of funds. The assessee's activity is comes under trade, commerce or business which is out of the purview of section 2 (15) of the Act. Further it was noticed from submissions dated 04.11.2019, the BCCI Treasurer office letter dated 25.06.2016 that net amount of Rs. 9,80,00,000/- (gross amount of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- less TDS Rs. 20,00,000/- was received from BCCI on purpose of "advance against amount due to association FY 2015-16 as working committee meeting held on 22.05.2016" (i) the assessee was asked to explain what advance was received against which amount due to the association FY 2015-16. (ii) The assessee was also requested to furnish the details (with supporting evidences like legible copies of minutes of the meeting highlighting the relevant portion re-garding grant of payments to the association, any other details etc.) the working committee meeting dated 22.05.2016. However, the assessee again failed to offer any supporting documents and/or any explanations. Moreover, the BCCI made TDS which itself shows that the amount re-ceived was contractual and can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to tax NIL 8. Thus, even accepting the gross receipts determined by the AO, once the Rs. 8.55 crore corpus donation is allowed under Section 11(1)(d) and the statutory 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) is duly allowed on income, there is no taxable income in the hands of TCA. The addition of Rs. 14,65,262/-, the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 8,90,251/- therefore does not result in any taxable income, particularly when the appellant's statutory claim under Section 11(1)(a) has not been properly considered. i Whether enhancement of gross receipts by Rs. 14,65,262/-and addition of Rs. 7,32,631/- under Section 13 were correct and affect the income of the appellant? 9. Consequently, what is the correct amount of income chargeable to tax, after giving effect to the appellant's claims under Sections 11(1)(a), 11(1)(d), 11(2), 11(6) and the other applicable provisions of the Act. The income will be nil. He further submitted that the judgement of ITAT Chandigarh bench is not applicable in the present facts of the case since, the assessee has not organized any IPL match or any international Cricket match. He further submitted that the Corpus Donation of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer had denied exemption under Section 11(1)(d) on the ground that there was no specific direction from the donor. The ld. CIT(A.) had allowed the corpus claim, and the Revenue's appeal against that finding was adjudicated by the Tribunal. 13. The Revenue raised the following Ground before the Tribunal, as below: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,84,00,000/- being Infrastructure Subsidy received from BCCI by allowing exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treating the same as corpus donation, despite the absence of any specific di-rection from the donor." 14. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and held that the Rs. 54.84 crore received by the TCA from BCCI pursuant to its Resolutions, earmarking the funds for infrastructure development and corpus pur-poses, constituted corpus donations eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act. It further held that a separate written di-rection from the donor for each individual contribution was not neces-sary, as the BCCI Resolution itself constituted sufficient specific direction regarding the corp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cifically directed the grant towards corpus/infrastructure purposes. The amount was credited to the Corpus/Infrastructure Fund and is being deployed exclu-sively for construction of a cricket stadium. Every requirement of Section 11(1)(d) is thus satisfied. Apart from Appellant's primary submission of corpus exemption U/s 11(1)(d), it is apparent that even if the receipt of Rs. 8.55 crores is treated as income, TCA is entitled to accumulation under Section 11(2) of the Act. 17. TCA filed Form No. 10B on 23.10.2017/05.07/2019 before completion of assessment, seeking accumulation under Section 11(2). The filing was delayed ; a condonation application explaining the delay was duly submitted; The Assessment was completed on 10.12.2019; CBDT issued Circular No. 30/2019 dated 17.12.2019 extending the ben-efit of condonation of delay in filing Form No. 10B for A.Y. 2017-18; and by the time the beneficial Circular was issued, the assessment had al-ready been concluded, through no fault of TCA. a similar issue has been dealt by the co-ordinate bench in the case of In Goregaon Education Society Vs. ITO (ITA No. 5879/Mum/2024, ITAT Mumbai, order dated 13.01.2025), wherein it has been held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income from such property, which is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes. This accumulation is automatic and unconditional - it does not require filing of Form No. 10 or compliance with conditions under Section 11(2). The total income considered under Sections 11 and 12 as per the A.O.'s computation is Rs. 27,71,56,511/-. Accordingly, the mandatory 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) should have been computed at 15% of the balance income of Rs. 19,16,56,511/- (i.e., total receipts of Rs. 27,71,56,511/- after excluding the corpus donation of Rs. 8,55,00,000/-), works out to Rs. 2,87,48,477/-. However, the computation sheet of the A.O. wrongly reflects this amount as "Nil", which is ex facie contrary to the express provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Appellant is therefore entitled to the statutory benefit of 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a), subject to verification of the computation by the Assessing Officer. 22. Further it was noted that the issue is whether the Appellant's activities fall within the first proviso to Section 2(15), so as to attract Sec-tion 13(8), on the allegation that the Appellant was carrying on an activity in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to result in any further addition to the total income. 22.3. Further we find that the enhancement of gross receipts by Rs. 14,65,262/- is unsupported by any discrepancy in the books of account, audited financial statements or return of income, and no cogent basis for such enhancement has been recorded. In any event, the addition is cov-ered by the mandatory 15% accumulation allowable under Section 11(1)(a). Therefore, the impugned addition does not result in any altera-tion of the taxable income. The addition is accordingly deleted. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 178/GTY/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) This appeal is against the order dated 31.03.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central NER, Guwahati, passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Guwahati, bearing DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1036026135(1)] where the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer ["AO"] in the assessment order dated 29.09.2021 passed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion exempt under Section 11(1)(d) 17,60,00,000 Income for the purposes of Section 11 22,69,28,532 Less: Application of income 20,54,24,703 Balance income: 2,15,03,829 Less: 15% statutory accumulation permitted under Section 11(1)(a) 3,40,39,280 Taxable Income NIL 25. The AO, in the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, disallowed the exemption claimed under Section 11(1)(d) in respect of the corpus donation of Rs. 17,60,00,000/-, disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2,09,23,967/- claimed as application of income, and computed the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 19,75,03,829/-, the Ld. CIT(A) principally proceeded on the basis that the Appellant had failed to effectively prosecute the appeal and had not furnished submissions in response to repeated notices. The Ld. CIT(A), confirmed the addition of Rs.11,61,40,582/- towards the alleged shortfall in application of income and the disallowance of Rs.2,09,23,967/- towards depreciation. The claim of exemption under Section 11(1)(d) in respect of the corpus donation of Rs.17.60 crore was also rejected. 26. The Appellant has raised several grounds before us, the principal grou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nge concerning Rs. 54.84 crore received from BCCI as infrastructure grants, where the Assessing Officer had denied exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that there was no specific direction from the donor. The ld. CIT(A) had allowed the corpus claim, and the Revenue's appeal against that finding was adjudicated by the co-ordinate bench, Revenue raised the following Ground before the Tribunal, as below: "That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,84,00,000/- being Infrastructure Subsidy received from BCCI by allowing exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 treating the same as corpus donation, despite the absence of any specific direction from the donor." The Co-ordinate bench dismissed the Revenue's appeal and held that the Rs. 54.84 crore received by the TCA from BCCI pursuant to its Resolutions, earmarking the funds for infrastructure development and corpus purposes, constituted corpus donations eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act. It is further held that a separate written direction from the donor for each individual contribution ....