← All Phrases

“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)

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)

Audit report in col.5, the assessee had set apart an amount of ₹.1,01,87,466/- towards accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act. However, the assessee has not filed Form 10 towards the same. As per the 3 I.T.A. No.613/Chny/23 provisions of section 11(2) read with Rule ... accumulation of income as per the provisions of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by denying the claim of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer has noted from the return of income filed, in Schedule I, the assessee had accumulated an amount

Nrusinh Saraswati Yog Chintan Math Trust, Thane vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Thane

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

ITA 2658/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2658/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Nrusinh Saraswati Yog बिधम/ Ito, Exemption Ward, Chintan Math Trust Thane Vs. 16, Narayan Niwas, Opp, Quereshi Mansion, Railway Station, Thane Gokhale Road, Naupada, East, Maharashtra-400603. Near Teen Hath Naka, Thane West-400602. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagts6735E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ramkrishna Lingsur Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 05.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying The Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs.10,50,000/- Despite The Fact That The Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing Form 10 Was Pending Before Ld. Cit(E), Pune.

For Appellant: Shri Ramkrishna LingsurFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)

under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act, which was the requirement of law as brought in by amendment inserted in section 11(2) of the Act by Finance Act, 2015. But assessee had uploaded Form-10 belatedly only on 22.11.2016 (2 months delay) and pointed

Baljeevan Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1872/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1872/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bal Jeevan Trust बिधम/ Ito (E), Ward-1(1) A/14, Sterling Apartments, Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. Peddar Road, Mumbai- Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400026. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2973M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Accumulation Of Rs.30 Lakhs As Per Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Read With Rule 17 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A

grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing the accumulation of Rs.30 Lakhs as per section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) read with Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter “the Rules”). 3. Brief ... specific and is only a reiteration of the broad objectives of the trust, the assessee doesn’t satisfy the requirement of section 11(2) of the Act read with Rule 17 of the Rules. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is before