“Section 11(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(6)170 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(6) is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(6)

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.

CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne

146 ITR 28 · 1984 · High Court

195

citing judgments

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute

109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court

191

citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona

402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court

187

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court

164

citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court

113

citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

CIT v. Matriseva Trust

242 ITR 20 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

An excess of expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in previous years can be adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, and this adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

Govindu Naicker Estate v. ADIT

248 ITR 368 · 2001 · High Court

citing judgments

A charitable trust may adjust expenditure incurred for religious or charitable purposes in an earlier year against the income of a subsequent year, which is considered an application of income for the subsequent year under Section 11. This principle is guided by commercial considerations and the benevolent intent of Section 11.

Judgments citing Section 11(6)

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

High Court of Bombay in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra) which deals with the assessment year prior to the amendment brought into section 11(6)/(7). The impugned year that is AY 2009-10 is also prior to the aforesaid amendment brought into section 11 and therefore, is covered

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Children Welfare Trust (Regd), Faridabad vs. CIT Exemption, Chandigarh

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3637/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

Section 11(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

order u/s 147 of the Act. Further submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly invoked the provision of Section 11 (6) of the Act, in order to wrongly disallow the depreciation claimed of Rs. 55,75,733/- claimed by the Assessee. Therefore, submitted that the A.O. has taken

DCIT Exemption, Ghaziabad vs. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2839/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

made by the AO. The AO has disallowed the depreciation by observing that w.e.f., 01.04.2015 an amendment has been made in section 11(6) of the Act, according to which once the application on the fixed assets is claimed out of the receipts, no further deduction or disallowance ... claim of depreciation on the fixed assets for which application has already been claimed, therefore, in view of the amendment provisions of section 11(6), no deprecation is allowable and he requested for the confirmation of the order of AO. ITA No.2839/Del/2018 18. On the other hand

DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6248/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

Jan Seva Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 3445/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan PatelFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Seva Mandal 3. A A sum sum of of Rs.43,938/- Rs.43,938/ under under section section 11 11 read read with with Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital Section 11(6

Snehasadan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 2(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2525/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kuamr Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

clause 2 of Explanation to section 11(1) of the Act. 2.3. A sum of Rs.11,17,256/- under section 11 read with Section 11(6) of the Act being the amount of capital expenditure incurred to be allowed as application of income. It is submitted that the disallowances referred

Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Exemptions Circle - 1, Bangalore

ITA 947/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

found that the assessee has shown a sum of Rs.104,88,910 as depreciation in the Income & Expenditure Account. Considering the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act, the AO was of the view that assessee cannot be allowed claim of depreciation and therefore the same was disallowed. Page

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

would like to mention here that all these three assessment years are prior to the date 01.04.2015 from which date the amendment to section 11(6) of the Act took ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 22 of 24 effect prohibiting allowance of separate deduction of depreciation and, therefore

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

M/S. S I Media LLP, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

commercial parlance after claiming deduction of depreciation expenses on such capital asset as provided u/s 32, is now barred by introduction of Section 11(6) of the 1961 Act by Finance Act , 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, wherein it is stipulated that in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been

Little Scholars Academy, Amroha vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 115BSection 127Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

been held by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has already claimed deduction at the time of purchase of assets so as per section 11(6) of Act, depreciation is not allowable on such assets. Thus the depreciation amounting to Rs.91,01,832/- was disallowed and added to the 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

Foundation Poona (SC) (402) ITR 441 [2018], it was contended that the depreciation as claimed by the Assessee should have been allowed since Section 11(6) of the Act was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. Assessment Year 2015-2016. The provisions contained in Section 11(6 ... stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken

Gundecha Charities, Mumbai vs. Joint Commssioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Lucknow

ITA 6448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A) challenging the disallowance of depreciation of INR.35,27,923/-. Vide order, dated 03/10/2024, the CIT(A) dismissed the ground raised by the Assessee observing that the Assessee had failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A) and had failed to substantiate the claim.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

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

appeal : “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of the claim of depreciation of Rs.35,27,923/- in view of section 11(6) from the application claimed by the assessee under Assessment Year 2017-2018 section 11 of the Act.” 3. The Assessee, a charitable organization running ... selected for scrutiny to examine large claim of depreciation and the corresponding application of Income, if any, in view of provisions contained in Section 11(6) of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of depreciation of INR.35,27,923/- made by the Assessee invoking the provisions contained

Subhadra Education & Research Centre, Pune vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 40/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 11(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Deva Educational Trust, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

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

ITA 313/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 144

appellant. 16. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 11(6)the Act, given the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 17. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that ... Assessing Officer erred in invoking the amended provisions of section 11(6) of the Act for the impugned Assessment Year, 2014-15, while the amendment would be applicable only with effect from Assessment Year 2015-16. 18. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre did not consider that the Assessing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-Circle-2 (1), Nagpur vs. Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 337/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section 11(6) of I.T. Act as double application of income. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... object of the trust is ` 46,55,68,022 which includes depreciation of ` 5,57,40,754. The Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 11(6) of the Act disallowed depreciation by holding that the assessee trust had already claimed the purchase of asset as an application of income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 336/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A