“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)

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

addition of the depreciation as claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs.38,24,001/- without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act were amended vide Finance Act, 2014 which was prospectively applicable from AY 2015-16. 14. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind, Mumbai City vs. D.C.I.T. (Exemption)-II(1) Mum, Mumbai City

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2382/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

asked to explain as to why the aforesaid claim for depreciation should not be disallowed in view of the provisions contained in Section 11(6) the Act.The Appellant in its reply letter, dated 16/11/2017,interalia,submitted that the claim for depreciation made by the Appellant was in compliance with ... other assessment year. Since the claim of depreciation made by the Appellant is in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 11(6) of the Act, we delete the disallowance of INR 35,35,702/- and direct the Assessing Officer to allow Appellant‘s claim of depreciation

Brajeswari Radharaman Intergenerations Humanitarian Trust., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Exemption, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1313/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 80G

assessee had debited depreciation amounting to Rs. 52,70,543/- from the income and expenditure accountant. The ld. AO viewed that as per section 11(6) of the Act provides that depreciation shall not be allowed while computing the income subject to application against those assets which have been treated

Eye Bank Coordination and Research Centre, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exem Ward 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3660/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

asked to show cause why the deduction for Depreciation of INR 2,33,133/- should not be disallowed as per 3 provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act. The Appellant, vide letter dated 29/11/2018, submitted that the Appellant had not claimed the cost of fixed assets as an application ... income in any of the earlier years and therefore, the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Act were not applicable to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Appellant was entitled to depreciation of INR 2,33,133/-. However, the Assessing Officer presumed that the cost of fixed assets must have funded

The Bombay Catholic Sabha, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption Ward 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3793/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3793/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Bombay Catholic बिधम/ Ito (Exem)-2(4) Sabha Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. St. Michael’S Church Baug, Parel, Mumbai- Compound, Mahhim (W), 400012. Mumbai-400016. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt3348L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mandar Vaidya Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)

Section 11Section 11(2)

Rs.69,49,289/- and had applied towards the object of the trust a sum of Rs.18,83,357/- [Excluding depreciation as per section 11(6) of the Act]. Thus, it was found that only a sum of Rs.15,99,351/- was applied for education activities out of Rs.18

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 906/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajashthan and Gujrati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) in the context of amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (NO.2) Act 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 wherein it has been held that up to AY 2015-16 the assessee ... stage that the legislature, realizing 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 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken

Carmel Convent, Thiruvananthapuram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Trivandram, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Dr. Seethalakshmi, Judicial Member

Fayz E Husayni Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 274

merely followed the Computation of previous assessment year in claiming depreciation and in the process missed out the amendment and the provisions to section 11(6) of the Act. wef 01.04.2015. The error is bonafide/unintentional and it does not impact the revenue as it will be a NIL Return even ... that existed than. However, the same became disallowable only from A.Y.2016-17 and onwards, consequent to an amendment to Section 11(6) of the Act. In other words, the depreciation amount claimed had to be added back while computing the Income and the same inadvertently remain to be done. Needless

Baba Hira Singh Bhattal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lehragaga vs. DCIT, (E), C-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 870/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aman Parti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 11

earlier years. In our humble view, this proposition, rather, is clearly opposite to what has been stated in the provisions contained in Section 11(6) of the Act, where it has been provided that, “Where u/s 11, any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart ... application of income under Section 11 in the same or any other previous year. Simply put, as per the provisions of Section 11(6), if acquisition of an asset has been claimed as application of income u/s 11 by the assessee in the concerned assessment year or in any other

Rawat Bal Vidha Niketan Samittee, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

ITA 537/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Anoop Bhata CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

application of income in earlier years and therefore this claim was not an allowable expenditure for charitable purpose within the meaning of section 11(6) of the Act. Since, the assessee is not entitled to benefit of section 11 of the Act for the reasons as detailed above, this claim ... application of income in earlier years and therefore this claim was not an allowable expenditure for charitable purpose within the meaning of section 11(6) of the Act. Since, the assessee is not entitled to benefit of section 11 of the Act for the reasons as detailed above, this claim

Sundeep Foundation, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above direction

ITA 3156/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesundeep Foundation V. Income Tax Officer B-606, Sambhavnath Tower Exemption Ward - 2(2) Sudha Park, Shanti Path Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- 400077 Parel, Mumbai- 400012 Pan: Aaats8213P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(2)

notice was issued to the assessee asking for clarification on the above issue with documentary evidences in view of the amended provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. In response, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted as under: - "...As trust has claimed exemption u/s 10(23C) and not u/s 11 ... mentioned in showcause hence applicability of section 11(6) doesn't arise in our case. We would further like to state that as trust while creating assets has never taken utilization of fund u/s 11(1A) hence depreciation taken under revenue should be allowed. We are also attaching judgement

Baljeevan Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1872/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1872/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bal Jeevan Trust बिधम/ Ito (E), Ward-1(1) A/14, Sterling Apartments, Piramal Chamber, Lal Vs. Peddar Road, Mumbai- Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400026. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb2973M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Accumulation Of Rs.30 Lakhs As Per Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Read With Rule 17 Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12A

Scholars International Educational Foundation, Rishikesh vs. DCIT (E), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deysh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE “G”, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice President Sh. M. Balaganesh

Rambagh Golf Club, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 444/JPR/2023[2014- 15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35Section 35(2)

11 has Rambagh Golf Club vs. ITO Exemption been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2015 and the relevant part of the amended section reads as under : Section 11(6): (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes ... 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