“Section 11(1)(d)”
The decision most relied on for Section 11(1)(d) is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11), cited in 541 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 11(1)(d)
When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.
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'.
For a charitable trust, a violation of Section 13(1)(d) does not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11 on its total income. Instead, only income derived from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 11(5) or income diverted under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) is taxable.
Exemption provisions and notifications must be interpreted strictly, and the burden of proving applicability lies with the assessee. If there is an ambiguity in an exemption clause, its benefit cannot be claimed by the assessee and must be interpreted in favour of the Revenue.
Charitable institutions are entitled to claim depreciation on assets even when the cost of acquisition has already been treated as an application of income for exemption purposes, as this does not constitute a double deduction.
The broad definition of 'business' should not be applied when interpreting the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the object and purpose of the section must be considered.
Income of a trust that is taxable at the maximum marginal rate should be taxed accordingly, while other income is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.
Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
