← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Cosmopolis Educational Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 575/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan UA, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11

Corpus fund donation as Income. In order to verify if the appellant is eligible for exemption u/s.11, the relevant section is reproduced below: “Section 11(1)(d) income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust ... corpus donations given with a specific direction, which also ought to be excluded from the income of the assessee in terms of section 11[1][d] of the Act. The aforesaid amounts were given by various schools for purpose of construction of the building and hence, the amount

The Bombay St. Xaviers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 3643/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

addition of INR.45,00,000/-, being amount deemed to have been applied during the previous year as per Clause (2) of Explanation to Section 11(1) of the Act), was made in the hands of the Assessee. It is the contention of the Assessee that the aforesaid disallowance/addition was made ... disallowing the amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose or for the stated objects of the trust under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee not filed the Form No.10B within the specified due date. 15. Being aggrieved

The Bombay St. Xaviers Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1266/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B. PatelFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

addition of INR.45,00,000/-, being amount deemed to have been applied during the previous year as per Clause (2) of Explanation to Section 11(1) of the Act), was made in the hands of the Assessee. It is the contention of the Assessee that the aforesaid disallowance/addition was made ... disallowing the amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable or religious purpose or for the stated objects of the trust under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that the Assessee not filed the Form No.10B within the specified due date. 15. Being aggrieved

Salwan Education Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Exmp 2(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5275/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Salwan Education Trust, Dcit, Salwan Schools Campus, Pt Exemption 2(1), Girdhari Lal Salwan Marg, Vs Delhi, Rajinder Nagar, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110060, New Delhi-110002. Pan- Aacts9741A Assessee Revenue

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Kanchanba Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Ac/DCIT. Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

substantial compliance, and that denial of exemption was unjustified for a mere procedural lapse. The assessee also submitted that the accumulation under section 11(1)(a) of the Act was within the permissible limit and that the clerical error in Form 10BB was corrected in the return itself. The assessee

Ct Educational Society, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for

ITA 396/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

prove it was engaged purely in charitable activities and was not existing for profit, leading to the invocation of Section 2(15) and Section 11(1) read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), and 13(3). 10. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this denial, observing in Para

Rithwik Foundation for Performing Arts, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4527/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Mr. Tarang Mehta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad,(CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

hypothetical and not supported by any actual conduct of the assessee. Moreover, incurring of merely incidental expenditure outside Indiadoes not violate provision of section 11(1) of the Act and what is intended to beprohibited is carrying on of charitable activity outside India. In the present case, admittedly, the charitable ... does not completely rule out exemption to incomes applied outside India for charitable purposes, granting exemption to certain such applications, as mentioned in section 11(1)(c), subject to being approved by the Board. 12. As is evident from the above, in the scheme of the Act, incomes applied outside

Satvara Gnati Samaj Seva Mandal, Morbi vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Rajkot

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

ITA 436/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemption, Circle- Aurangabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1312/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Vinayaka Education Trust, Nadiad vs. The DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO- the ITO, Exemption Ward, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1402/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

record that the assessee had incurred revenue expenditure of Rs.3,67,53,006 towards its charitable objects and had claimed accumulation under section 11(1)(a) amounting to Rs.59,97,501. 2.2 The return filed by the assessee was processed by the CPC under section 143(1). The CPC disallowed

M/S. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Excemption, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 164/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

under consideration) by utilizing income of current year. 6. At first, we re-produce below the applicable provision of section 11(1)(a) reading as under: “(1) Subject to the provisions of section 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous ... charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; ......... ” [emphasis supplied] 7. Thus, the section 11(1)(a) grants exemption to “/ncome derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income

Nehru Smaraka Vidya Kendra Trust, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Bangalore

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

ITA 715/BANG/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

For Appellant: Dr. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

arriving at the excess of income over expenditure has grossly ignored the capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income under section 11(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in law in not allowing accumulation under section 11

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Vyakti Vikas Kendra India, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 11(3)(d) applies to income under section 11(2) and not to current year's income or to accumulation under section 11(1) and thus assessee's claim was allowed. ACIT Exemptions vs. Vyakti Vikas Kendra India Page 12 of 15 10.2. Therefore, if the donations have been ... 11. Ground no.3 pertains to the addition of Rs.24,90,54,752/- on account of corpus donation which was claimed as exempt under section 11(1)(d) of the Act. This issue is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case. The relevant paragraphs

The Indus Entrepreneurs, Hyderabad vs. DCIT - Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 559/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.559/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Indus Entrepreneurs, The Dcit-(Exemption), Vs. Hyderabad-500084. Circle-1(1), Pan Aabat0359F Hyderabad – 500 029. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri M V Swaroop, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Mookambikeyan S. Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri M V Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Mookambikeyan S. Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE : SHRI MANJUNATHA

Mumbai Cricket Association, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

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

ITA 1257/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2024-2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)

Mumbai Cricket Association, Mumbai. 3.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in facts and in law in holding that provisions of section 11(1)(c) of the Act are violated without appreciating that 'arranging tours outside India' does not amount to application of income for purposes outside India ... objects, included an object permitting the Appellant to organize tours of its cricketers outside India, which was treated as in violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act (b) The streams of income earned by the Appellant reflected incomes which in the opinion of the Commissioner of Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Indian Institute of Carpet Technology, Bhadohi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 117/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Indian Institute Of Carpet Income-Tax (Exemption), Technology, Chauri Road, Srn, Lucknow Bhadohi Pan: Aaaji0124M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,70,77,516/- That Was Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Surplus Above 15% Of Gross Receipts. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Deleting The Addition Made Of Rs. 1,70,77,516/- On Account Of Amount Surplus Above 15% Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Instead Of Utilizing This Amount Or Crediting This Amount To Income & Expenditure Account, This Sum Was Directly Credited To Balance Sheet. 2. Appellant Craves Leave To Modify/Amend Or Add Any One Or More Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Society Is Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 11.12.2006 Of The Ld. Cit, Varanasi. From A Perusal Of The Papers Submitted By The Assessee As Well As The Data Available Online, The Ld. Assessing Officer Found That There Was A Receipt Of A Grant

For Appellant: Sh. Akash Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)Section 12A

apparently not satisfied with the same and therefore, he added the same back to gross receipts after allowing 15% statutory deduction under section 11(1) of the Act. He also disallowed depreciation of Rs. 65,45,834/- in accordance with the provisions of section 11

Haryana Saraswati Heritage Development Board, Panchkula, Haryana vs. DCIT/ACIT(E)(Circle-2) Chandigarh, Chandigarh

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

ITA 962/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 164(3)Section 270A

Counsel for the Assessee argued that the assessee has received corpus fund /grant in aid from the Government of Haryana under section 11(1)(d) therefore it should not considered as income of the assessee, accordingly, it cannot be taxed. 6.1 On this issue the assessee has filed a written ... religious trust/institution must apply at least 85% of its Receipts (including donations, except corpus donations) for charitable purposes is laid down in Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The relevant para is reproduced as under: "Income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes

Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Nashik

ITA 814/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (HUF), Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(5), Nashik

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

ITA 813/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Mig Cricket Club, Mumbai vs. DCIT(E)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year : 2014-15 Mig Cricket Club, Dcit(E)-2, Mig Colony, Mtnl Building, Mig Cricket Club, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Ramkrishna Paramhans Marg, Mumbai-400026. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatm4779J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Sathe For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 143(1)

assessee after granting exemption under section II and treating the corpus donations as capital receipts, and allowing the 15% statutory deduction under section 11(1)(a) as claimed in accordance with the law.” 12. In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case