“Section 11(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(2)636 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(2) is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11), cited in 541 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(2)

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.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court

390

citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court

328

citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

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.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court

206

citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal

211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court

204

citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Judgments citing Section 11(2)

DCIT Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 225/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.224 & 225/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit (Exemptions) Circle, Vs. Ashirwad Charitable Pune. Trust, 402, Pascal Martin Road, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan : Aabta4479Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Raja B. Singh & Mohd. Obaid Ansari Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 06.12.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal In Ita No.224/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

consequence, the action of bringing to tax Rs.1,85,02,755/- by disallowing the deduction of income accumulated/set apart under section 11(2) of the Act is found to be untenable and the Ld. AO is directed to delete the same accordingly. Further, the Ld. AO has made addition

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Exmp Circle Pune, Swargate Pmt Bldg vs. Ashriwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 224/PUN/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3Section 5

Sri Poddar Madal Bhavani Samity, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exemption, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 325/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.325/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri Poddar Madal Bhavani Samity……………………………..….……….Appellant Ground Floor, Mission Court, 25, R. N. Mukherjee Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aabts8573R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata.....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 14, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 19.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/Jcit(A)-2 Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Public Charitable Trust Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.05.2021 By Declaring Nil Taxable Income After Claiming Application Of Income For Charitable Purposes & Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Act. The Cpc, Bengaluru Issued An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 30.11.2021 By Disallowing The Assessee’S Claim Of Application Of Income Of Rs.13,10,039/- & Accumulation U/S 11 Of The Act At Rs.1,54,072/-. Consequently, The Entire Amount Was Treated As

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 44A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

Audit Report in Form 10B was filed within the due date where the amount of set apart claimed in the return under section 11(2) was separately mentioned. 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law as well as in facts in not giving due regard to the circular ... Amount in addition to amount referred to in (v) above, accumulated or set apart for specified purposes if all the conditions in section 11(2) and 11(5) are fulfilled, is not allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 13(9) of the Income Tax Act.” Hence, the exemption

Archana Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Income tax Rule,1962 (in short the “Rule”) with the ROIin the Income-tax Department. The assessee claimed deduction under section 11(2) of the Act related its income over expenditure. Due to delay in filing ROI and Form 10B, the Ld. AO rejected the deduction claimed U/s 11(2 ... completion of assessment proceedings - Held, yes - Whether even if Form 10 was filed during re-assessment by assessee-trust, benefit of accumulation under section 11(2) was available because such filing would be considered within time allowed for furnishing return of income under section 139(4) - Held, yes [Paras

Sunil Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

Watershed Organisation Trust, Ahmednagar vs. ACIT Exemption Circle, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1976/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.D. KudvaFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

preservation of the environment. 6.17 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant contested that it had earned revenue of Rs.24.22 Croes and as per Section 11(2) it had set aside unutilized funds of Rs.8.53 Crores and had also applied for accumulation as well. Further, the appellant also mentioned that inadvertently

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh, Cr Building vs. Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation, Maranda, Palampur, Himachal Hp

ITA 390/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 164(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 270A

Form no.10B gives complete account of the income of the appellant and amount applied and accumulated/set apart as part of the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act. Out of the total receipts received during the impugned AY of Rs.19,23,59,913/-, a sum of Rs.14 ... 2(15) of the Act. The amount received has been either spent for charitable activities or set aside for accumulation as provided in Section 11(2) of the Act. Thus, more than 85% of appellant's income has been applied for charitable activities as provided in the Act. As explained

Uttari Bharat Sabha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (E)-2(4), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1185/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 119Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

from Gross Total Income for money invested in forms specified under section 11(5) for compliance of provision of section 11(2) of IT Act Grounds of Appeal No 3 :- The Assessee prays to Condone for delay in filing Form 10 Grounds of Appeal No 4 :- The CPC erred

Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

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

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT

Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

Explanation to subsection 12AB(4) of the Act is concerned, he submitted that the investment is only specific to section 11(2), which fact is neither examined nor ascertained nor any finding given on that count. He submitted that the breach is also not pointed out as any year specific

Kerala Catholic Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 945/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Kerala Catholic V/S. Ito Exemption, Ward 1(4), Association बिधम Mumbai Kca Bhavan, St. Francis Of Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Asis International School, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te P.L. Lokhande Marg, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Chembur, Mumbai, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400043 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk3121E Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

time of assessment proceedings. 6. On the facts and in law, all the relevant details relating to accumulation as per section 11(2) of the Act, were made available before the Assessing officer, in Form 10B filed before filing of return of income and therefore, mere filing of Form ... after making an addition of Rs. 1,34,00,000/- on account of violation of provisions of section 11(2)(c) r.w.s. 13(9) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The assessee did not make any compliance

Mumbai Railway Vikas Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. C.I.T (E), Mumbai

ITA 3227/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 617

that in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 : ‘Schedule-I - Details of amount accumulated/set part within the meaning of Section 11(2) of the Act or in terms of Proviso of Section 10(23C) of the Act’ was incorrectly filled which was taken note ... Order on the basis of mistake committed by the Assessee in filling ‘Schedule-I - Details of amount accumulated/set part within the meaning of Section 11(2) of the Act or in terms of Proviso of Section 10(23C) of the Act’ in the Return of Income for the Assessment Year

Medicos Educational Society, Tumkur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tumkur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 138/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 154

made before the learned CIT(A) and submitted that the CPC has wrongly not allowed exemption as claimed by the assessee as per section 11(2) of the Act, only because of late filing of Form No.10B. During this period, the Revenue was updating its e- portal and there were

West End Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1426/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnished Return Of Income Under Section 139 (1) Of L.T.Act. (Ii) Return Of Income For A.Y.2022-23 Filed On 31-10-2023 Though The Return Was Uploaded In Computer For Necessary Submission On 24-09-2022 But Due To Website Problem The Same Remain Unfiled When The Return For A.Y.2023-24 Was Under Process Of Submission, It Was Observed That Return Form A.Y.2022-23 Remain Unfiled, Immediately Return Was Filed. Shree 1008, Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250

ADDL JCIT (A) failed to Appreciate That:- (i) The assessee filed form no.10 i.e. statement to be furnished to the assessing officer Under section 11 (2) of 1.T.Act on 24-09-2022 i.e. before the due date of furnished Return of income under section 139 (1) of L.T.Act. (ii) Return ... assessee furnished Form-10B well within time. The Central Processing Centre (CPC) while processing return of income not allowed the exemption under section 11(2) in the intimation issued vide order dated 09.12.2024 under section 143(1). The assessee filed application under section 119(2) of Income

Swami Satyaprakashnand Shiv Mandir Trust, Udham Singh Nagar vs. AO (Exemption), Dehradun

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 93/DDN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2022-23 Swami Satyaprakashanand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shiv Mandir Trust, Kali Kotdwar Mandir, Bareilley Haldwani (Uttrakhand) Bye Pass Road, Kishanpur, Udham Singh Nagar Uttarakhand Pin: 263148 Pan No. Aants6873L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

filed Form 10 for Rs.70,00,000/- which is more than the actual fund set apart under Rule 19(2) read with section 11(2) of the Act. Reliance was placed on para nos. 6 to 9 2 of ITA Nos. 882/Del/2024 titled as Earthing Trust Vs. ITO decided

Iit Bhilai Innovation and Technology Foundation, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 139/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.139/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Iit Bhilai Innovation & Technology Foundation Old Dhamtari Road, Sejbahar, Government Engineering College Campus, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aafci9961E ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

jurisdictional Commissioner. During the year, the assessee had failed to utilize 85% of its income towards objects of the trust, therefore, as per Section 11(2) of the Act r.w.Rule 17(2) of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee was required to submit Form 10 before the jurisdictional

Joy of Sharing Foundation Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2965/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.K.M. Mohan Dass, CA

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Shree 1008, Shantinath Digamber Jain Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exem) -2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1244/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 250

Bangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, (E), Ward-1, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2246/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)Section 5

VOL.I B-667 2000- 01 CIT-II dated 24.01.2001 with effect from 09.05.1995 in the status of others. The assessee claimed exemption under section 11(2) of the Act in its return of income as in the earlier years. The same was rejected by the AO on the ground that

Bangalore Stock Exchange Customer Protection Fund, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, (E) Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2245/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Manasa Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 250Section 253(5)