“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)

Darga Ehazrat Syedshah Khwajadas Chisti Unnayabi Perpetual Trust Vatpalli, Vatpally Sahreef vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 567/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

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

resort to such a procedure contemplated under the Circular and therefore, the CPC rightly disallowed the exemption claimed by the trust under section 11(2) of the Act. Page 2 of 4 6. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side ... date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act cannot be so fatal as to deny the claim of exemption under section 11(2) of the Act, especially when Form 10/10B was available on record when the intimation was passed by CPC under section

The Bombay Catholic Sabha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3205/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mandir Vaidya, A/RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12A

instead was only a reiteration of the broad objectives of the trust. According to AO, this general purpose cannot satisfy the requirement of section 11(2) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules. According to AO, accumulation of A.Y. 2016-17 The Bombay Catholic Sabha income ... accumulating Rs.30 Lakhs was not for object of the trust. In such a scenario, since assessee has satisfied the conditions laid down in section 11(2) of the Act for accumulation of the income, the same has to be allowed. It is also noted that from chart (supra) (statement

National Childrens Fund S5, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas New Delhi, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward Exmp 2(4) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3192/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

Section 11(2)Section 12A

appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3.1 In nutshell, we are tasked to decide that whether the disallowance of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act in both appeals are justified. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals, in brief, are that the appellant/assessee ... itemized purpose or a purpose instrumental or ancillary to the implementation of object or objects. (b) the specification of purpose as required by section 11(2) admits of no amount of In CIT Vs M Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family trust 2451TR400 the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that

National Childrens Fund 5 Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas New Delhi, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward Exemption 2(4) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3156/DEL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

Section 11(2)Section 12A

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 902/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 901, 902 & 1037/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18) िनधा"रण वष" Gujarat Safety Council Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara, Gujarat, 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee. While Two Of The Appeals Are Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 28.08.2023 & 27/09/2023 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 Respectively, The Third Appeal Is Against The Order Of Addl./Jcit (A)-1, Coimbatore For The A.Y. 2017-18. The Issue Involved In All Three Appeals Are

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 901/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1037/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT.DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 234ASection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

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)

filed with the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer categorically notes this and observes that “the assessee has to follow the accumulation provisions of Section 11(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

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)

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

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

ITA 2973/MUM/2024[A.Y. 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramaniam, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT, DR

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(3)

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 Assessing officer erred in disallowing Picnic Expenses of Rs 10,21,183/- from Gross Total Income as application

Educo, Mumbai vs. Exemption Ward (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2857/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Educo Nfac Exem. Ward 1(2), 25A, Belvedere Court, Piramal Chamber Lalbaug, Sane Guruji Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aaate 3280 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. SrinivasanFor Respondent: 01/08/2024

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 2(24)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI

Rani Adaikalaraj Educational and Charitable Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Exemptions, Trichy

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 575/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 575/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Rani Adaikalaraj Educational V. Exemption Ward & Charitable Trust, Income Tax Office, Represented By Managing 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trustee – A Joseph Francis, Trichy – 620 001. 7-B, Arokiasamypillai Lane, Crawford, Trichy – 620 012. [Pan:Aaatr-0494-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel For Ms.G. Vardinikarthik, Advocate & Mr. V. Arunachalesh, Advocate & Mr. R. Sumedha, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel for Ms.G. VardiniKarthik, Advocate & MrFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vikneswaran, JCIT

Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)

considered in all fairness E. The CIT(A) and AO erred in holding that the option under Explanation to Section 11(2) is applicable instead of Section 11(1)(a) because appellant has not filed Form 10 /Form 9A as the case may be. F. The lower authorities should have

Sasken Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemptions, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142Section 143Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 80G

extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Denial of accumulation of income under section 11 (2) — Rs. 77.12,882 2.1. The learned AO erred in denying the accumulation of income made under section 11 (2) amounting ... mentioned in Sasken Foundation, Bangalore Page 2 of 5 between the objects, the appellant has not accumulated or set apart income under section 11 (2) for any specific purpose or purposes. 2.3. The entire basis and rationale for disallowing the accumulation of income under section 11 (2) amounting

St.Francis Xaviers Church, Kandakadavu vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ernakulam

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

ITA 789/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.N. Sreekumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant

United Economic Forum, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 1134/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1134/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 V. M/S. United Economic Forum, The Ito, No.4, Buhari Building, Moores Road, Exemptions Ward-1, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai-600 006. [Pan: Aaatu 0087 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Anandh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

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

Amrita Society, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-I Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 124/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

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

only issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal relates to disallowing the set apart fund under section 11 (2) and section 11(5) of the Act on account of delay in filing of income tax return. 3.2 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noted that ... 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

Aadivasi Welfare Foundation, Jharkhand vs. Assessing Officer, Exemption Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2870/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhary & Shri Gagan Goyalaadivasi Welfare Foundation, Plot No. 8185, Sri Krishna Road, Near Srinath University, Dindli Basti, Majhitola, Adityapur, Pan No. Aarca5995N ...... Appellant Vs. Ao (Exem.) Ward-1(1), Pratistha Bhavan, Church Gate, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Venkata Anil, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 246Section 250

West Bengal States. v) Further, for form 10 there are a number of legal precedents which supports the view that the provisions of section 11(2) relating to filing of Form 10 for the purpose of accumulation by the time limit under 139(1) is directory in nature

Maharashtra Housing & Area Develpoment Authority, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption)-Circle 2, Mumbai

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM

Ishwar Education and Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-2, Pune

ITA 913/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER

Ishwar Education and Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exmeption Ward-2, Pune

ITA 1174/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER