“Section 11(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(1)848 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(1) is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(1)

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.

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.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court

398

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

Redington (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

77 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · High Court

370

citing judgments

No disallowance under Section 14A can be made in the absence of actual exempt income, as Section 14A relates to the earning of actual income, not notional or anticipated income, thereby declining to apply the CBDT Circular dated 11th May 2014 in such cases.

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.

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.

Judgments citing Section 11(1)

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

ITA 1137/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, 3 Lt Col Tarapore Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaats4768F Appellant/ Assessee V The Dy.Commissioner Of S. Income Tax Exemption, Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.02.2025 For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 18.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)

even after imputing the all alleged addition, on account of the excess application of income beyond the prescribed threshold of 85% under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the very foundation for levy of penalty stands vitiated. 3. Ground 3: Accounting Reclassifications do not constitute Underreporting of Income

Ampi Foundation, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 365/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraampi Foundation, Deputy Director Of Income Unimark Asian, 16Th Floor, Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru, 52/1, Shakespeare Sarani, (Jurisdictional Assessing Kolkata - 700017 Vs Officer, Ward 1(4), (Pan: Aadta8073A) Exempt, Kolkata, 10, Middleton Row, Kolkata - 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

being corpus donation received during the year to which the assessee is entitled in terms of Section 12A(1)(b) read with Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income

M/S. Likeminded Education and Welfare Society, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2648/MUM/2025[NA.]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent by

Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

documentary evidences submitted to the office of the Lrnd. CIT(Exemptions). Further, Learned CIT(Exemptions) has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the ground that the MOA and Rules & Regulations provide for the application of Income outside India ... however, the same have been summarily disregarded while concluding the proceedings ii. The ld. CIT(Exemptions) has erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 11(1)(c) of Act focuses on denial of exemption

Likeminded Education and Welfare Society, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2647/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12A

Institute of Clinical Research India Society, Dehradun vs. CIT(A), Dehradun

Appeal is allowed

ITA 45/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 12ASection 194Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 40

11 to 13 is a part of Chapter 3 under the heading "Income which does not form the part of the total income". Section 11 (1) provides that "subject to the provisions of Section 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income ... what extent it can be applied for charitable purposes. The manner in which the income can be applied has been laid down in Section 11(1) to Section 11(5). Section 13 provides exception to Section 11 wherein such an income can be excluded from the exempt income

Sree Taralabalu Jagadguru Education Society, R T Nagar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 762/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Shreeraksha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

11 and 12 of Rs.69,02,26,323/- and revenue expenditure of Rs.36,10,05,535/-. Further, the assessee has claimed accumulation under section 11(1)(a) of the Act of Rs.10,49,85,431/- and has also claimed accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act of Rs.23

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 437/CTK/2024[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

amended law is with effect from AY 2015-16. The assessee’s submission can be summarised as under: “a. Making disallowances under section 11(1) and (2) is not allowed in the Intimation stage of proceedings. b. It is undisputed that the claim of the assessee was legally correct

Gram Vikas Trust, Berhampur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Berampur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2014-

ITA 436/CTK/2024[AY 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

New Bombay Merchants Educational Foundation, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assesseeis allowed

ITA 2690/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) New Bombay Merchants Educational Acit (E),-2(2), Mumbai Foundation, Vs The Sugar Market Assc. 1St Floor, Central Facility Bldg Fam Market 1, Phase 2, Turbhe Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703. [Pan No. Aaatn2984J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pradeep Kapasi Ca Revenue By Ms. Sujatha Iyangar, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 18.04.2025 Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.06.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 246A

school. The assessee spent almost similar amount of total receipt and a little surplus of Rs. 32,541/-, before exemption of 15% under section 11(1)(a). The assessee trust full fills all criteria for eligibility of exemption under section 11. The assessee filed its return of income within

Mahansaria Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2158/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 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. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

company toward the discharge of it's CSR to a registered charitable institution, in our view, is akin to corpus donations. Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act speaks of the specific or corpus, donations, although it has not been defined under Income Tax Act, 1961. Corpus donations

Health Foundation & Research Centre, Dahod vs. The ACIT, Circle-2, Exemption, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 483/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

made by the AO. The grounds relating to the exemption under section 11, the treatment of corpus donations, and claim of deduction under section 11(1)(a) were not adjudicated. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A),NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised ... 11 and treating the corpus donations as capital Health Foundation & Research Centre vs. ACIT 9 receipts, and allowing the 15% statutory deduction under section 11(1)(a) as claimed in accordance with the law. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced

St. Gregorios Education and Medical Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT Exemtion, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1432/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "G", MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S

The Hazaribagh Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Hazaribag vs. ACIT, Hazaribag

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

ITA 158/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Podar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT DR

Section 11(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

option contemplated by the Explanation to section11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied. He submitted that such return was liable to be considered. He submitted that similar is the decision of the Co-ordinate ... High Court in the case of Trustee of Tulsidar Gopaji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust (supra) was in relation to the provisions of section 11(1) of the Act. It was P a g e 3 | 6 Assessment Year : 2016-17 the submission that when the Act specifically provide

Sant Shri Asaramji Ashram Trust, Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemp.-2(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2270/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2021-22 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sant Shri Asaramji Ashram Trust, Ward- Exemption 2(1), C/O- Rakesh Khiwani & Co, Delhi Ca, E-8, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi Pan :Aaats1560M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

upholding the Intimation Order of the CPC, which is the deemed application under clause (2) of the Explanation to section 11(1) during the previous year 2020-21 and reported in the Audit Report Form No. 10B on the basis of Form No. 9A, filed timely and accepted

Apna Ghar Ashram, Jodhpur vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, Ward (Exemption), Bangalore / Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 730/JODH/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

course of the processing of the return of income, the Assessing Officer could not have denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Sections 11(1) and 11(2) on the ground that the audit report was not filed. 5.6 The tribunal further committed an error in appreciating the import ... dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 6.1 The appellant assessee has to be held to be eligible and entitled to exemptions under Section 11(1) and 11(2) of the Act and the alleged ground of non-filing of audit report alongwith return of income which was at the best

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 242/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 11Section 2(15)

F.Y.2017-18 on accrual basis which ought to have been offered for tax as per clause (ii) of Explanation (1) to Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; V. The CIT(A) has erred in allowing Workers' Welfare Cess payable to the State Government as an allowable expenditure despite

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 241/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 11Section 2(15)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Exemptions)Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CA

Section 11Section 2(15)

Shree Subrahmanya Temple, Thokur vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward-2, Mangalore

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

ITA 2437/BANG/2024[2437]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Boarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 111Section 13(9)

return. . Page 3 of 10 6. The AO also found that the assessee is not eligible for accumulation of 15% as provided under section 11(1) of the Act. The AO in this regard referred the CBDT circular No. 12-P(LXX-7) of 1968 dated ... application of income. This amount had been invested in capital assets, specifically fixed deposits, which should qualify as application of income under section 11(1)(a) of the AO. The AO had acknowledged that the amount was invested in capital assets, yet treated it as not constituting application of income

Marol Education Academy, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward - 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1575/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vipul ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

depreciation was claimed, the entire expenditure incurred for acquisition of capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under Section ... that normal depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee on general principles or under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income