← 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)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-1 (1), Mumbai-400026 vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Mumbai-400037

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1265/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit (Exemption)-1(1), 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill Dr. Gd Deshmukh Marg, (Padder Road), Mumbai- 400026. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Guru Nanak Vidyak Society, Ground Floor, Guru Tesh Bahadur Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai-400037. Pan: Aaatg2095D ..... Respondent Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Satyapal Kumar, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, Ar Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/12/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] Vide Order Dated 29.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Condonation For Return Of Income When Only

For Appellant: Sh. Priyank Ghia & Kanu Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Satyapal Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

have been specified and details about plan of such expenditure has not been given, same would not be sufficient to deny benefit under section 11(2) to the assessee. 14. We found no force in the appeal of the revenue; hence order of Ld. CIT (A) is sustained

Cancare Trust, Mumbai vs. The Comm of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1155/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1155/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) Cancare Trust बिधम/ The Commissioner Of A-508, Byculla Service Income Tax (Appeals), Vs. Industries Premises Chs, National Faceless Appeal Dadaji Konddev Road Centre, Mumbai. Byculla (E), Mumbai- 400027. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatm4606L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. Vallabh Gokhale/Ms. Mrunmayee Kajrekar Revenue By: Mr. P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 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 23.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Including The Total Income Of The Appellant Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.1,20,13,966/- Without Taking Cognizance Of The Form 10 Filed By The Appellant On 29Th Sep, 2015 With The Office Of The Learned Ao. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Treating Ground No. 1 Of Cit(A) With Respect To Accumulation U/S 11(2) Of The Act As Withdrawn.”

For Appellant: Mr. Vallabh Gokhale/MsFor Respondent: Mr. P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(b)Section 11(2)Section 12A

physically submitted as on 29.09.2015 (AY. 2015-16) and take a fresh decision in respect of the accumulation of income as per the section 11(2) of the Act in accordance to law. 5 A.Y. 2015-16 Cancare Trust 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5597/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5597/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Maharashtra Housing & Acit (Exemption)-2(1) बिधम/ Area Development Piramal Chambers, Vs. Office Of Finance Lalbaug, Mumbai- Controller, Mhada, 4Th 400012. Floor, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaajm0344H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms. Jasmine Amalsadvala Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-01, Mumbai Dated 28.06.2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “1.0 Denial Of Exemption Under S. 11 The Learned Cit(A) Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Upholding The Assessment Order Appealed Against Denying Exemption Under S.11 Of The Act. Relief Claimed: The Appellant Be Granted Exemption Under S.11 Of The Act. 2.0 Engaged In Business:

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar/Ms. JasmineFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN