← All Phrases

“Section 11(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)516 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(1)(a) is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(1)(a)

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT
77 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · High Court
370
citing judgments

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of actual exempt income, as Section 14A relates to the earning of actual income, not notional or anticipated income, thereby declining to apply the CBDT Circular dated 11th May 2014 in such cases.

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

Judgments citing Section 11(1)(a)

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

Revenue cannot now turn back and say that the main object was very wide and assessee could not be given benefit of Section 11(1) of the Act. Activity of renting out Kalyanamandapam in our opinion could be construed as only incidental to the attainment of its main object. Assessee ... donation given by an individual for which benefit to the extent given under Section 80G alone could be claimed. However, a reading of Section 11(1) of the Act clearly show that, types of income mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) therein have to be excluded while computing the total

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

Officer accordingly disallowed depreciation of INR 2,33,133/-. Further, while assessing the income of the Assessee, the Assessing Officer allowed deduction under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act only to the extent of INR 2,199/- without appreciating that the Appellant was entitled to deduction

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

income, even then it is presumed that WDV is there in the books of account. We have even perused the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act which provide that if the sale consideration received on sale of assets is utilized for acquiring another asset then the same ... computed on the gross receipts of the assessee. The relevant extract of the decision held as under: “A mere look at section 11(1)(a ) as it stood at the relevant time clearly shows that out of the total income accruing to a trust in the previous year from property

Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Panipat vs. ITO(E), Ambala

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

ITA 7873/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Vs. Ambala, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Bc Haryana - 122001 Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (Pan: Aaats4962K) Haryana – 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

subsequent year would amount to application of income of the trust for charitable purposes in the subsequent year within the meaning of section 11(1)(a) of the Act in favour of the assessee.” Hon’ble Delhi High Court has answered this question by observing as under:- 6. “We find ... subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act." No contrary decision has been cited. From the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that there is no bar in computing income

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

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)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

lakhs for application of the same for educational (charitable) purposes, as under: (PB pg. 14) The Nehru Memorial Education Society v. ITO (a) Section 11(1)(a & b) toward application to the extent of 85% Rs. 9.51 lakhs (b) Income accumulated to the extent of 15% u/s. 11(1

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

denied in assessment. The principal issue arising in the instant appeal is the validity of the assessee’s claim for the said exemption. Section 11(1)(d), reading as under, exempts income received by way of voluntary contributions toward corpus of the trust/institution: 1 | P a g e Carmel Convent ... information / document to show that school development fund and welfare fund was not collected from each & every child due to voluntary nature as section 11(1)(d) of the Act clearly provides that the receipts should be in the form of voluntary contributions with a specific direction to become

Acil Navasar Jan Rural Development Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) Ward1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3743/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Priti Kamble (Accountant)For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

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

gross receipts. Therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC is upheld and the grounds nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed.’ (emphasis, ours) 4.2 Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, also read out during hearing, reads as under: Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. 11. (1) Subject ... fifteen per cent of the income from such property; (b) to (d) ……… 4.3 The issue arising, in fine, is the applicability of 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

Parth Pragati Mandal, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO(Exemption), Palanpur

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 882/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 882/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Parth Pragati Mandal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 19, Umiya Parivar Society, (Exemption) Vs. Valasana Road, Idar, Palanpur Sabarkantha – 383430, Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtp4353N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C S Sharma, Sr. Dr 21/02/2024 Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 13.09.2021 Passed By The Ao, Nfac, Delhi, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Raising A Demand Of Rs.2,30,409/- For Assessment Year 2018-19, Whereby & Whereunder The Appeal Filed By The

For Respondent: Shri C S Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G(5)

appellant is a trust requires to file return of income in ITR-7 and needs to claim the 15% set apart under Section 11(1)(a) of the ITA No. 882/Ahd/2023 [Parth Pragati Mandal vs. ITO(E)] A.Y.– 2018-19 - 5 – Act instead of filing ITR-5 which

Santhome Charitable Society, Chennai vs. The ITO Exemptions, Ward-3, Chennai

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

ITA 613/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.613/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Santhome Charitable Society, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalaivanar Nagar, Athipet, Ambattur, Exemptions Ward-3, Tamil Nadu 600 058. Chennai. [Pan:Aabts1184L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 17.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Society Is Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

added that actual surplus amount was only ₹.26,89,215/- and that the amount of ₹.41,49,136/- includes 15% excluded under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has observed that the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart shall ... added that actual surplus amount was only ₹.26,89,215/- and that the amount of ₹.41,49,136/- includes 15% excluded under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has observed that the period for which the income is to be accumulated or set apart shall

Lions Comprehensive Eyecare Foundation, Sangli vs. Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1225/PUN/2023[A.Y.2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Hon'Blelions Comprehensive Eyecare Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Foundation, C/O Plot No.31, Kolhapur. Midc, Miraj, Sangli-416410. Pan: Aaatl 0619 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishore B. Phadke, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. Phadke, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „SMC‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Lions

Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT Circle Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 589/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

Section 12AA of Act, 1961 and the question whether amount transferred to Mandi Parishad would constitute application of income for 'charitable purpose' under Section 11(1)(a) of Act, 1961 has been decided against Revenue by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT E (Circle), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 305/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234A

Section 12AA of Act, 1961 and the question whether amount transferred to Mandi Parishad would constitute application of income for 'charitable purpose' under Section 11(1)(a) of Act, 1961 has been decided against Revenue by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti

Onkar Society for Engineering & Technological Research & Development, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Exempt., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 10BSection 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘B’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant

Give Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the primary matter involved in all the Assessment

ITA 795/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 234BSection 25Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 8

Court held that when a donor-trust which is itself a charitable and religious trust donates its income to another trust, provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have been met out by such donor-trust and the donor- Give Foundation vs. DCIT Asst.Year ... religious and charitable purposes would not make the slightest difference, so far as entitlement of the donor- trust for exemption under section 11(1) goes. In the case of All Saints School v. ITO (Exemption) [2019] 105 taxmann.com 149/176 ITD 632 (Delhi - Trib.), the Delhi ITAT held that exemption

Baba Hira Singh Bhattal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lehragaga vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 870/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 11

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil University, Mumbai vs. ACIT Income Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3265/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Ochanthurthu vs. CIT Exemptions, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 58/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasour Lady Of Perpetual Help Cit (Exemptions) Church C.R. Building Ochanthurthu Vs. I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682508 Cochi 682108 [Pan:Aaato1832L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Shri Modh Patni Ghanchi Gnati Punch Trust, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(6), Surat

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

ITA 88/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.88/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shri Modh Patni Ghanchi Gnati Income Tax Officer, Punch Trust, Vs. Ward-2(3)(6), Bahulbaug, Prichhadi Road, Surat Haripura, Surat-395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts 2898 D (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

The Bombay Society of the Salesian Sisters India, Wadala Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 2 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order disallowing the exemption for assessment year 2016-17 is hereby set aside

ITA 2920/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha Sr.AR
Section 11(1)(a)

building and the amount paid towards property tax of the said building during the F.Y. 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17) is exempted under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961, is the question, which falls for determination in this appeal. 2. The appellant, The Bombay Society ... religious purposes. It is submitted that the nature of expenditure, being capital expenditure or otherwise is not relevant in the context of section 11(1)(a) of the said Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Satya Vijay Patel Hindu