← All Phrases

“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)

Surya Realcon Private Limited, Saraidhela, Dhanbad vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Dhanbad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

filed within the time specified in sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act and the option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied." Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur ... DCIT time specified in sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act and the option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied." The Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur Bench

Surya Realcon Private Limited, Saraidhela, Dhanbad vs. DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan, Dhanbad

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

filed within the time specified in sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act and the option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied." Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur ... DCIT time specified in sub-section (4) of section 139 of the Act and the option contemplated by the Explanation to section 11(1) is exercised in writing along with such return, the requirements of the Explanation to section 11(1) would stand satisfied." The Hon'ble ITAT Nagpur Bench

Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

para 9 of the order that “ Applying the ratio of the above decision, the option exercised by the assessee under the Explanation to section 11(1) of the Act before the time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 139 has to be held to have been exercised before

Jayshri Gopallal Maharajshrini Surat Srusti Trust, Surat vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1238/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: of Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT DR
Section 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

Raniwala Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Cir-6, Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Nikhilesh Kataria, C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80J

though the same may not have been filed along with the return of income, the assessee is entitled to claim of exemption under section 11(1) and 11(2). Accordingly, looking into the instant facts, and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Knitting

Archana Foundation, Mumbai vs. Asst Director of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 848/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH

Sunil Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 6(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 250

para 9 of the order that “ Applying the ratio of the above decision, the option exercised by the assessee under the Explanation to section 11(1) of the Act before the time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 139 has to be held to have been exercised before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-2, Chandigarh, Cr Building vs. Palampur Rotary Eye Foundation, Maranda, Palampur, Himachal Hp

ITA 390/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 164(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 270A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

DCIT(Exemp)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Development Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5954/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 11(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

exemption to the assessee u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to fulfil the condition under section 11(1)(c) of the Act by making foreign donations of Rs. 27,67,50,000/- during AY 2013-14 to Harward Business School ... challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition made by the Assessing Officer by rejecting Assessee’s claim under Section 11(1)(c) of the Act in respect of application of Income of INR.27,67,50,000/-. It was contended before the Learned CIT(A) that on merits

Seth Rb Moondhra Memorial Charitable Trust, Bani Park, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption(1), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 610/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Prabha Rana, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 2

circumstances of the case, the learned AO (CPC) has erred, both onfacts and in law, in disallowance of Rs. 43,272/- under section 11(1)(a) of the Act on account of amount accumulated or set apart for charitable or religious purpose. That the said disallowance has been made despite ... 1)(a) of the Act on 15.11.2014 by the CPC Bangalore: 1.1. Disallowing the amount Rs. 43,272/- which was claimed under section 11 (1)(a) (11)(b) as accumulated or set apart for application to charitable purposes to the extent it does not exceed 15 per cent

Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune vs. CIT(E), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1552/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture, CIT
Section 12ASection 13(1)(a)

amount will form part of corpus of the donee trust is application of income by the donor trust within the meaning of section 11(1)(a) eligible for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 46. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sarladevi ... held that when a donor trust which is itself a charitable and religious trust donates its income to another trust, provisions of section 11(1)(a) can be said to have been met by such donor trust and the donor trust can be said to have applied its income

Dr . Kiran Patel Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH

Kerala Catholic Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 945/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Kerala Catholic V/S. Ito Exemption, Ward 1(4), Association बिधम Mumbai Kca Bhavan, St. Francis Of Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Asis International School, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te P.L. Lokhande Marg, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Chembur, Mumbai, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400043 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk3121E Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

erred in wrongly adding back the figure of Income of Rs. 1,36,45,240/- on account of denial of exemption under Section 11(1) of the Act as it is unwarranted, unjustified and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1261/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1260/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1259/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Energy Development Agency, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the

ITA 1258/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10Section 10(230)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

nature of voluntary contributions or donations and therefore the same could not be treated as corpus donation referred to in section 11(1)(d) of the Act? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

Jagadguru Panchacharya Education Society, Kolhapur vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2683/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

report in Form 10B and there was no contravention of any of the objects of the trust or any contravention any way of sections 11(1)(a), 12 or 13 of the IT Act. The trust did apply its income towards the objects of the trust. The intimation

Satyendranath Bose Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2339/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Satyendranath Bose Educational Vs Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata & Social Welfare Trust, 19/2/5, Amar Chakraborthy Rd. Ac Road Khagra, Berhampur-742103 Pan No. : Aaots 9288 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.09.2024, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Denying The Benefit Of Exemption Claimed U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Failed To Correctly Appreciate That The Assessee Was Indeed Maintaining & Aiding Education Institutions & It Existed Solely For Educational Purposes Without Any Motive For Profit & Since Its Annual Receipts Did Not Exceed The Limit Of Rs.1 Crores, It Had Rightly Claimed Exemption U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 10Section 250

conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of Section 12(1) read with Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, what is not includible in the total income of a charitable institution is the receipt by way of corpus donation. However

Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2, Exemption Ward, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2104/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2104/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Amroli Station Utran Cirtcle-2,Exemption Ward V/S. Choryasi, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Surat – 394 107 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabts 4579 B अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

assessee claimed deduction of expenditure incurred towards the objects of the trust amounting to Rs.8,99,61,404/- and statutory deduction under section 11(1)(a) amounting to Rs.1,09,02,771/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), while processing the return of income under section 143(1