← 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)

M/S. Auro Lab Trust, Madurai vs. ITO, Madurai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3075/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3073, 3074, 3075 & 3076/Chny/2019 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Aurolab Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Sivaganagai Main Road, Vs. Ward-Ii(4), Veerapanjan, Madurai. Madurai – 625 020. [Pan: Aaata 1142P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate -.थ+ की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-12 To 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts In All The Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Identical & Common Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, All The Appeals Are Decided By The Common Order. For Brevity , We Shall Take Up The

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 1I

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी यस यस िव"ने

Rani Adaikalaraj Educational and Charitable Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Exemptions, Trichy

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 575/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 575/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Rani Adaikalaraj Educational V. Exemption Ward & Charitable Trust, Income Tax Office, Represented By Managing 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trustee – A Joseph Francis, Trichy – 620 001. 7-B, Arokiasamypillai Lane, Crawford, Trichy – 620 012. [Pan:Aaatr-0494-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel For Ms.G. Vardinikarthik, Advocate & Mr. V. Arunachalesh, Advocate & Mr. R. Sumedha, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel for Ms.G. VardiniKarthik, Advocate & MrFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)

fairness E. The CIT(A) and AO erred in holding that the option under Explanation to Section 11(2) is applicable instead of Section 11(1)(a) because appellant has not filed Form 10 /Form 9A as the case may be. F. The lower authorities should have considered that ... made wrong claim under the head "amount deemed to have been applied during the previous year as per clause (2) of Explanation to Section 11(1) amounting to Rs.71,77,551/- in its Return of Income for A.Y.2018-19. As discussed in above para, the assessee has even filed its audit

Shree Gunatit Jyot Mahila Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward - Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 326/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 326/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Shree Gunatit Jyot Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Mahila Trust Ward, Exemption Vs. Post Box No.23, Pappaji Vadodara Marg, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Anand, Gujarat, 388120 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaats8722P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 12.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Registered Under The Bombay Public Trust Act And

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 271(1)(c)

purpose of construction of building. While filing the return of income, the assessee had claimed exemption for corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d) of the Act. It also claimed amount of building construction as income applied for the objects under Section 11(1) of the Act. The AO rejected ... claim under Section 11(1) of the Act in respect of building construction amount of Rs.2,36,23,637/- on the ground that the expense was incurred out of corpus donation. However, there was no effect on the total income of the trust and the assessed income was computed