ORDER: P. Sam Koshy, J. These are the four appeals filed by the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) assailing the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad(for short ‘the ITAT’) decided on 28.07.2011 arising out of four connected appeals of different assessment years in respect of the same assessee. 2. The details of the four appeals, the assessment years, names of the appellant and the respondents, for convenience, are reproduced hereunder: ITTA. No. ITA No. Assessment Year Appellant Respondent 427/2011 1381/Hyd/2008 2003-04 A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad (PAN- AABCA7164R) ITO Ward-1(1) Hyderabad(presently Dy. Director of Income Tax(Exemption)-III, Hyderabad 428/2011 711/Hyd/2009 2005-06 “ Asst. Director of Income Tax(Exemption)-III, Hyderabad 429/2011 1382/Hyd/2008 2004-05 “ Dy. Director of Income Tax(Exemption)-III, Hyderabad 435/2011 436/Hyd/2010 2006-07 “ Asst. Director of Income Tax(Exemption)-III, Hyderabad 3. These appeals were filed primarily raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the equity participation made by the appellant corporation in its joint venture companies for the attainment of its objectives could be treated as an investment in violation of Section 11 (5) r.w.s.13(1)(d) of the Act, leading to the denial of the exemption granted under Section 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and taxing the entire income.” 4. In addition, in ITTA.No.427 of 2011, there are two more substantial questions of law raised and they are: “2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, confirming the additions towards the prior expenses allowable as per the settled case laws cited by the Tribunal is correct in upholding that no details were furnished. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the non-consideration of the claim of deduction of Rural Development cess which was allowed in subsequent years appeals following the decision of jurisdictional High Court’s, the Tribunal is correct.” 5. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the non-consideration of the claim of deduction of Rural Development cess which was allowed in subsequent years appeals following the decision of jurisdictional High Court’s, the Tribunal is correct.” 5. So far as the substantial question No.1, which is common in all the four appeals, is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department have stated that the issue is no longer res integra as the batch of connected appeals in respect of the same assessee for the earlier period of assessment i.e., for the assessment years 1994-95 to 2001-02, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of High Court in ITTA.No.325/2007 & batch, and stood decided by order dt.28.11.2024, and the said judgment is also reported in (2024) 169 taxmann.com 726 (Telangana). 6. Learned counsel appearing on either side submit that so far as substantial question No.1 is concerned, the judgment rendered in the above referred batch of cases would govern the field and therefore, we find it trite at this juncture to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment, as under: “12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record. Section 11 (1) of the Act mandates that any income derived from the property held under the trust wholly for charitable purpose or religious purpose is exempted from the total income to the extent to which such income is applied to charitable or religious purpose in India. However, Section 11 is subject to provisions of Section 13 of the Act. Section 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) provides that if any funds of the trust or charitable institution is invested or deposited before first of March, 1983, otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Section 11 (5), continue to remain so invested or deposited after 30.11.1983, the assessee shall not be entitled to the benefit of exemption. 13. In the instant case, the assessee is a charitable institution and invested the funds in the shares of the joint venture companies, namely, (1) Sudha Modern Dhall Mill Limited (2) Delta Oils & Fats Limited (3) Sri Guruvaurappan Swamy Oil Foods & Fats Limited, and (4) Godavari Edible Bran Oil Limited, in the year 1982-83. 13. In the instant case, the assessee is a charitable institution and invested the funds in the shares of the joint venture companies, namely, (1) Sudha Modern Dhall Mill Limited (2) Delta Oils & Fats Limited (3) Sri Guruvaurappan Swamy Oil Foods & Fats Limited, and (4) Godavari Edible Bran Oil Limited, in the year 1982-83. The said joint venture companies are neither the Government Companies nor the Corporations established under Central or Provincial Acts. The investment was made by the assessee as a promoter in the joint venture companies. The essential nature of the investment made by the assessee was an investment in the shares of the joint venture companies. 14. The assessee continues to hold share even beyond the cut-off date i.e., 30.11.1983. The funds invested from the assessee corporation was from the profit of previous year relevant to the assessment year 1984-85. Therefore, the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The assessee is, therefore, not entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 15. Now, we may examine whether the entire income from such an investment made in violation of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, which has accrued to the assessee has to be taxed. From perusal of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is evident that the Legislature did not contemplate the benefit of denial of Section 11 of the Act, to the entire income and only the income from an investment made in violation of Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act is liable to tax. The aforesaid view has been taken in DIT (Exemption) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbahai Foundation Trust [2001] 114 Taxman 19/249 ITR 533 (Bom.) and in IT (Exemption) v. Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593 by Bombay and Delhi High Courts respectively. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid decisions were relied on by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another v. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230 (Kar). We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Division Benches of Bombay, Delhi and Karnataka High Courts. It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision of Karnataka High Court in FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions [2014] 363 ITR 230 (Kar). We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Division Benches of Bombay, Delhi and Karnataka High Courts. It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the decision of Karnataka High Court in FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions (supra) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court in the decision in M/s. J. Sikile Foundation, Chennai v. DCIT, Exemption-Iii, Chennai [2014] 51 Taxmann.com 378 (SC). 16. For the aforementioned reasons, the substantial question of law framed in these Appeals is answered by stating that the investment made by the assessee in its joint venture companies is an investment made in violation of Section 11 (5) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Act and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. However, only the income from such an investment made in violation of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is liable to tax.” 7. It has been further informed that neither of the parties have taken the said judgment to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence the said judgment has attained finality. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the substantial question No.1 in this batch of four appeals needs to be answered, accordingly. 8. In view of the same, the substantial question No.1 stands answered holding that the investment made by the assessee in its joint venture company is an investment made in violation of Section 11 (5) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 and therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the benefit of total exemption under Section 11 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. At the same time, it is also held that the income from such an investment under Section 11 (5) made in violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 shall only be liable to tax. 9. As regards the other two substantial questions of law that are raised in ITTA.No.427 of 2011 are concerned, we hold that the answer to that would be the consequential proceedings that would be passed by the Department in terms of the disposal of these four appeals. 10. Accordingly, the Appeals are partly allowed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.