← All Phrases

“Section 11(3)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(3)(c)39 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(3)(c) is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(3)(c)

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation
164 ITR 439 · 1987 · High Court
153
citing judgments

For charitable trusts, the set-off of excess expenditure from prior years against the income of a subsequent year is considered an application of income for charitable purposes. Similarly, the repayment of loans borrowed for legitimate charitable activities is also treated as an application of income.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

Judgments citing Section 11(3)(c)

Shree Dadar Digamer Jain Mumuksho Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Dadar Digamber Jain The Cit (Exemption), Mumukshu Mandal, Ward-2(3), 271/293, 271/293, Vs. Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Road, Opp: Shivaji Park, P.O. Dadar (West) Mumbai-400028. Pan : Aacts8044A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.N. Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 05-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri A.N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)

without considering the correct provision stated for the same. 2 b) The learned CIT(A) failed to correctly interpret the amendment in section 11(3)(c) and proviso after clause 11(3)(d) while calculating the period of expiry for utilization of accumulated fund and erroneously confirming the addition ... clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10." 8. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that pursuant to the provisions of Section 11(3)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, any portion of income which has been set aside or accumulated for application towards a specified purpose shall

South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed’’

ITA 1617/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1617/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-2019. South Zone Cultural Centre, The Assistant Commissioner Of Medical College Road, Vs. Income Tax , Thanjavur 613 004. Exemption, Coimbatore. Pan: Aaeas 6898R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Mahadevan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.01.2024 For Assessment Years2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-6 Grounds. However, We Find That The Solitary Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Ita No.1617 /Chny/2024 The Addition Made By The Ao For Rs.48,88,871/- Under Provisions Of Section 11(3)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Mahadevan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12A

that ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding ITA No.1617 /Chny/2024 the addition made by the AO for Rs.48,88,871/- under provisions of section 11(3)(c) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are as under: The assesseeis a society registered under section 12AA of the Income