← All Phrases

“Section 11(7)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(7)29 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(7) is CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries (201 ITR 325), cited in 195 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(7)

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

Zenith Processing Mills v. CIT
219 ITR 721 · 1996 · High Court
86
citing judgments

The requirement to furnish an auditor's report (e.g., under Section 80J(6A), 80-IA(7), or Form 10B/10IC) along with the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Such a report can be filed at a later stage, provided it is submitted before the completion of the assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.
313 ITR 231 · 2009 · High Court
55
citing judgments

This case establishes principles for distinguishing operating leases from finance leases and determining if leased equipment constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE). It also clarifies that reassessment proceedings initiated on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind are invalid.

Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association
7 SCC 396 · 2005 · Reported
53
citing judgments

Beneficial statutes, especially procedural provisions, can be given retrospective effect if they are enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, applying the doctrine of fairness, even without an explicit retrospective provision.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
130 ITD 137 · 2011 · ITAT
52
citing judgments

Interest income, such as on income-tax refunds or fixed deposits, derived by a foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is taxable under DTAA if the debt-claim is effectively connected or attributable to the PE. For DTAA purposes, the terms 'attributable' and 'effectively connected' are considered to have the same meaning.

DIT v. Abbey Business Services Private Limited
122 Taxmann.com 174 · 2020 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Expenses incurred and reimbursed for seconded employees under a secondment agreement are not liable to tax deduction at source and do not constitute 'fees for technical services'. The secondment agreement itself forms an independent arrangement for securing services.

(1938) 6 ITR 1, 7 (Ail); Bharat Development (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
133 ITR 470 · 1982 · High Court
41
citing judgments

For an activity to be considered 'business' under income tax law, it must occupy time, attention, and labour with a normal object of making profit. Profit motive is an important factor, and the activity should involve a continuous course of dealings between two or more persons.

Judgments citing Section 11(7)

Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

ITA 6544/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv. & MrFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 35ASection 80

inclined to allow the ground raised by the assessee.” 8. Further regarding the question raised by the revenue qua the amendment in section 11(7), the ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under: “5) The fact that the law has been amended by the Finance (No.2 ... introduction of Section 11(7) of the Act itself supports/strengthens the case of the Appellant. It is to be noted that the said amendment has been made effective from 1 April, 2015 and will be applicable from Assessment Year 2015 2016 onwards. Similar amendment, simultaneously introduced through Section 11

Apmc Tarikere, Tarikere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chickmagalur

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act except claim u/s 10(1) & 10(23C) as per section 11(7) of the Act and accordingly concluded that exemption claimed by the assessee trust u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act is not allowable in view ... specific provisions contained in section 11(7) of the Act. 3.3 Further, during the course of scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee had received cash of Rs.7,63,000/- during the period of demonetization in the form of market fee, license fee, etc. and deposited the same into

Kanchanba Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Ac/DCIT. Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1566/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(7)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

filed Form 10BB on 25.09.2024 believing that it was eligible for exemption under section 10(23C). Upon realizing the legal position under section 11(7) that a trust registered under section 12A cannot simultaneously claim exemption under section 10(23C), the assessee filed Form 10B on 18.12.2024, which was Kanchanba

Babu Jagjivan Ram National Foundation, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer (E), Ward-1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 223/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Babu Jagjivan Ram Vs. Ito (E) National Foundation, 8 Ward-1(3) Krishna Menon Marg, Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aaaab6869M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Meena Goyal, Ca Ms. Mehak Gupta, Advocate Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

exemption u/s. 10 (26B) of the Act while completing the assessment u/s.143(3). 3. On the other hand the learned DR stated that section 11(7) of the Act prohibits the assessee claiming exemption u/s.10(26B) of the Act since the assessee is registered

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3442/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bkc Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3441/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed

DCIT 26(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 26(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s.12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s.10

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2484/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 26(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2483/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed

Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

cancelled w.e.f. 20.03.2015, the assessee had valid registration u/s. 12A of the Act up to 19.03.2015. Hence as per amended provision of Section 11(7) of the Act, the assessee cannot avail exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Accordingly, he upheld the disallowance of exemption claimed

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Nawazbhai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3581/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Section 10(34)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(4)

registration u/s 12A was in force during the previous year relevant to A. Y 2016-17 and thus contravene the provisions of section 11(7) of the Act ?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in allowing deduction

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2058/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Suraiya/Sukhsagar Sayal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 13(1)

assessee's registration u/s 12A was in force during the previous year relevant to AY 2015-16 and thus contravene the provisions of section 11(7) of the Act ?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified ... firm belief that since the registration u/s 12A of the Act is in force as per the newly introduced provision of Section 11(7) no exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act is allowed and accordingly an amount of Rs. 2,10,92,63,867/- being dividend income claimed exempt

DCIT, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Suraiya/Sukhsagar Sayal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 13(1)

assessee's registration u/s 12A was in force during the previous year relevant to AY 2015-16 and thus contravene the provisions of section 11(7) of the Act ?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified ... firm belief that since the registration u/s 12A of the Act is in force as per the newly introduced provision of Section 11(7) no exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act is allowed and accordingly an amount of Rs. 2,10,92,63,867/- being dividend income claimed exempt

Mumbai Apmc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exem, Circle 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5185/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Harani (Hybrid)For Respondent: 25.02.2025
Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12A

deny the exemption under section 10(26AAB) is that the assessee is registered under section 12A and that as per the provisions of section 11(7) a registered trust cannot claim exemption under section 10. The ld.AR argued that the assessee is statutorily eligible for exemption under section 10(26AAB ... 26AAB) to the assessee for the only reason that the assessee is registered under section12A and that as per the provisions of section 11(7) the assessee cannot be allowed exemption under 4 ITA No.5185/Mum/2024 - Mumbai APMC section 10. We further notice that the coordinate bench in assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai A P M C, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5613/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 131Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Registration u/s.12A has no significance or relevance any more in case of agricultural produce market committee. Here the provision of section 11(7) will not be fetter because now per se any income from whatever source of the agricultural produce market committee is exempt and cannot be included

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai A P M C, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5611/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 131Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Registration u/s.12A has no significance or relevance any more in case of agricultural produce market committee. Here the provision of section 11(7) will not be fetter because now per se any income from whatever source of the agricultural produce market committee is exempt and cannot be included

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle Aurangabad, Near Cantonment Area Aurangabad vs. Alhira Education and Welfare Society, Aurangabad, Near Kat-Kat Gate

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee in C

ITA 494/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora
Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Bhartiya Shiksha Prachar Samiti Tonk, Tonk vs. Circle(Exemp.), Jaipur

ITA 895/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 06.12.2018. Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer. By Way Of Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer (Exemption Circle), Jaipur Computed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under:- “7. Subject To Above, The Total Income In This Case Is Computed As Under:- Gross Receipts As Per Income & Expenditure A/C Rs. 8,20,85,351/- Less: Revenue Expenditure As Per Income & Expenditure Account Rs. 6,28,43,345/- Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Total Income Rs. 1,92,42,006/- Rs. 1,92,42,010/-“ Rounded Off

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

these two provisions dealing with charitable organisations. Now, efforts have been made to do away with this overlap by adding two provisos to section 11(7) of the Act, which state that once a trust or an institution has a registration under section 10(23C) or section 10(46), then

Jermel'S Accademy, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 738/KOL/2024[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year:

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 11(7)Section 12A(1)(ac)

these provisions are applicable in respect of trust/institution whose registration has become inoperative due to the first proviso to section 11(7) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the assessee to submit following details/information. a) Copy of form No. 10A filed in the financial year 2022-23 for the grant ... assessee in form no. 10AC c) Copy of approval u/s. 10(23C) or Notification u/s. 10(46) of the Act (refer section 11(7) and its provisos). 3. In case the aforesaid application was wrongly filed, the same may be withdrawn and intimation may be given at the earliest