← All Phrases

“Section 11(2)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(2)(a)54 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(2)(a) is Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr. (156 ITR 11), cited in 541 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(2)(a)

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.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

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.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Judgments citing Section 11(2)(a)

Vokkaligara Sangha, Chikballapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 1210/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedvokkaligara Sangha, 1, Bb Road, Chikballapur, Chikaballapur H.O Chikkaballapur. Pan – Aaatv 4478 M Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 12A(1)(a)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption claimed under the provision of section 11(2) of the Act. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee, in the present case, a public charitable trust, is registered under section ... processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act for reason that the assessee has not filed Form 10 as required under section 11(2)(a) of the Act within specified time limit. 5. The assessee, after receiving the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated

Fransalian Society Nallasopara, Vasai Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward - 1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 380/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(2)(c)Section 119(2)(b)Section 13(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

issue to be decided in the above captioned appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for accumulation of funds in term of section 11(2) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short) when Form 10 was filed alongwith revised return of income under section ... filed alongwith return of income within due date mentioned under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO denied exemption under section 11(2) of the Act because as per amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, Form No.10 shall be filed before the due date of furnishing

South Zone Cultural Centre, Thanjavur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed’’

ITA 1617/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1617/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-2019. South Zone Cultural Centre, The Assistant Commissioner Of Medical College Road, Vs. Income Tax , Thanjavur 613 004. Exemption, Coimbatore. Pan: Aaeas 6898R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Mahadevan, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Irs, Jcit. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31.01.2024 For Assessment Years2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On 1-6 Grounds. However, We Find That The Solitary Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Ita No.1617 /Chny/2024 The Addition Made By The Ao For Rs.48,88,871/- Under Provisions Of Section 11(3)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Mahadevan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12A

instant case amount of Rs.48,88,871/- which was accumulated during FY 2011-12, therefore period of five years as required in section 11(2)(a) has been violated. Therefore, amount of Rs.48,88,871/- applied during the year has been disallowed. In conclusion, AO held as under: “Since ... money so accumulated or set apart is invested or deposited in the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5)]:]" The provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act clearly authorize the assessee to accumulate the fund for the specific purpose for the specified period. In case on hand there

National Childrens Fund S5, Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas New Delhi, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward Exmp 2(4) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3192/DEL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

Section 11(2)Section 12A

appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3.1 In nutshell, we are tasked to decide that whether the disallowance of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act in both appeals are justified. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals, in brief, are that the appellant/assessee ... itemized purpose or a purpose instrumental or ancillary to the implementation of object or objects. (b) the specification of purpose as required by section 11(2) admits of no amount of In CIT Vs M Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family trust 2451TR400 the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that

National Childrens Fund 5 Siri Institutional Area, Hauz Khas New Delhi, New Delhi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward Exemption 2(4) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3156/DEL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

Section 11(2)Section 12A

appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 3.1 In nutshell, we are tasked to decide that whether the disallowance of accumulation under section 11(2) of the Act in both appeals are justified. 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals, in brief, are that the appellant/assessee ... itemized purpose or a purpose instrumental or ancillary to the implementation of object or objects. (b) the specification of purpose as required by section 11(2) admits of no amount of In CIT Vs M Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Family trust 2451TR400 the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed that

Sasken Foundation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Exemptions, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142Section 143Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 80G

extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. Denial of accumulation of income under section 11 (2) — Rs. 77.12,882 2.1. The learned AO erred in denying the accumulation of income made under section 11 (2) amounting ... mentioned in Sasken Foundation, Bangalore Page 2 of 5 between the objects, the appellant has not accumulated or set apart income under section 11 (2) for any specific purpose or purposes. 2.3. The entire basis and rationale for disallowing the accumulation of income under section 11 (2) amounting

Sh. Nawal Kishore Dangayach, A-34-A, Ram Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary ( Addl. CIT) a
Section 14ASection 37

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Gujrati Mahamandal Hati Bhata, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ajmer

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

ITA 810/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Saliga, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10Section 11

appellant had failed to fulfill the condition laid down u/s 11 (2)(a), hence the action of the AO denying the benefit of Section 11(2) of the appellant is held to be fully justified and in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, the AO has also discussed

DCIT, Circle Exemption Jaipur, Jaipur vs. State Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Jaipr

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Pooonia, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 288Section 44A

made following remarks regarding the above issue: "The assessee's submission has been considered but not found acceptable in view of provisions of section 11(2)(a) of the LT Act, 1961 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the organization/trust must indicate specific purpose or purposes 6 DCIT,CIRCLE- EXEMPTION ... 11(2) is denied and calculated taxable income accordingly. In this regard, it is relevant to re-produce the provisions of section 11(2)(a) as under:- "Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes: (2) Where (eighty-five) per cent of the income referred to in clause

The Goa Hindu Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Shankar JalgarFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh
Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

accumulated in Fixed Deposit with Scheduled Banks as per the requirement of Section 11(5) of the Act and had claimed benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act in respect of the same. The return filed by the Appellant was processed under Section ... total income of the Appellant was determined at INR.46,52,761/- disallowing Appellant‟s claim under Section 11(2) of the Act in relation to accumulation of surplus. Intimation/order under Section 143(1) of the Act, dated 22.10.2016, was issued to the Appellant to this effect. 4. Upon enquiry with

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2169/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

form. In principle also no distinction between the form and the rule can be drawn to judge the extent of delegation under section 11(2)(a) where the language does not permit delegation of power to prescribe limitation to give notice. A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 2168/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

form. In principle also no distinction between the form and the rule can be drawn to judge the extent of delegation under section 11(2)(a) where the language does not permit delegation of power to prescribe limitation to give notice. A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust

Vile Parle Mahila Sangh, Mumbai-400057 vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai-400026

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1066/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blevile Parle Mahila Sangh V. Cit (Exemptions) Mangalayatan, Paranjpe B Scheme Room No. 601, 6Th Floor Road No. 1, Vile Parle (E) Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road Mumbai - 400057 Dr. Gopal Rao Deshmukh Marg Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – 400026 Pan: Aaatv2407Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Achal Sharma

Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263

disallowance of Rs.2,36,06, 199/- will not be factually correct or justified." 7. After considering the above submissions, Ld.CIT(E) relying on section 11(2) and section 11(3) of the Act observed that the charitable entity in order to avail exemption under Section 11 of the Act must ... Form No. 10. He basically submitted that assessee has to declare the unutilised income in the sixth year of accumulation of income. Since section 11(2)(a) of the Act specifies the period of accumulation or set apart which shall not exceed five years, that means the assessee

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

refer to a liability which has crystalised into a legally ascertained sum immediately payable? (2) Do the taxes (in clause (a) of Section 11(2) refer only to taxes relating to a specific period or to all taxes due from the notified person? (3) At what point or time should ... taxes have become due? (4) Does the Special Court have any discretion relating to the extent of payments to be made under Section 11(2)(a) from out of the attached funds/property? (5) Whether taxes include penalty or interest? ….. 19. While answering Question No.5, the Court held:- “One other connected