← All Phrases

“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
91
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
89
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)

Siddhagiri Gurukul Foundation, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 625/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Cit (Exemption) Siddhagiri Gurukul Foundation Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Siddharameshwar Mandir, Jayrameshwar Co-Op Hsg. Soc., Piramal Chambers, Vs. S.V. Road, Goregaon, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 062 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts0759G

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit K. Shrivastava, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12Section 143Section 24Section 263

further depreciation of Rs 1,27,86,297/– is not to be allowed as application of income in view of the provisions of Section 11 (6) of the act. 06. The assessee submitted its reply on 8/3/2021 stating that that though the learned assessing officer has not included the donation

ITO (E), Ward- 2(2), New Delhi vs. Shri Swami Satyanand Dharmarth Trust, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2468/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 15Section 70

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan and Gujarat the charitable foundation Poona (supra). Further we find that section 11 (6) of the Act has been inserted by way of Finance Bill 2014, which has restricted deduction of depreciation in case of trust etc. The relevant ... been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 11. We note that the section 11(6) has been made effective from 01/04/2015 i.e. assessment year 2015-16 onwards and hence, same is not applicable for the year under consideration

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Bhagwati Educational Society, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4258/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 68

application of the income, the assessee is entitled for depreciation as application of the income in subsequent years, prior to insertion of section 11(6) of the Act with effect from assessment year 2015-16. The instant case being of assessment year 2010-11, the assessee is eligible for depreciation

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 168/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11(6) of the IT Act, 1961 inserted w.e.f 01.04.2015. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A), New Delhi ... erred in law, facts & equity in not allowing the relief to the Appellant by giving reasons that the said amendment in Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 167/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11(6) of the IT Act, 1961 inserted w.e.f 01.04.2015. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A), New Delhi ... erred in law, facts & equity in not allowing the relief to the Appellant by giving reasons that the said amendment in Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 166/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11(6) of the IT Act, 1961 inserted w.e.f 01.04.2015. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A), New Delhi ... erred in law, facts & equity in not allowing the relief to the Appellant by giving reasons that the said amendment in Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 165/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11(6) of the IT Act, 1961 inserted w.e.f 01.04.2015. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A), New Delhi ... erred in law, facts & equity in not allowing the relief to the Appellant by giving reasons that the said amendment in Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11(6) of the IT Act, 1961 inserted w.e.f 01.04.2015. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A), New Delhi ... erred in law, facts & equity in not allowing the relief to the Appellant by giving reasons that the said amendment in Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made w.e.f. from 01.04.2015 is retrospective in nature and not prospective. 5. That on the facts and circumstances

DCIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. M/S. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti, Delhi

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

ITA 645/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 70

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

CIT vs. Vanord Acz India Pvt Ltd

Appeal is dismissed on this ground

ITA - 974 / 2011HC Delhi27 Sept 2011
Section 11(6)Section 263Section 36

would further revealed that according to him the claim was still alive, inasmuch;as, the assessee had moved an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and.Conciliation Act befcre the Supreme Court for appointment of Arbitrator which showed that the matter was pending for arbitration and, therefore, as there