“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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Aditya Birla Private Equity Trust, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Income Tax Officer 20(1)(1), Mumbai)

Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Bleand

Section 1Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 11 of the Act imposing restriction for availing exemption under section 10 of the Act. He submitted, no such restriction like section 11(7) of the Act has been imposed in section 10(23FB) of the Act. The learned Sr. Counsel further submitted, dividend income, in any case

Sunil Tibrewal Foundation, Bhiwandi, Thane vs. CIT (Exemptions), Pune

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

ITA 3520/MUM/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Anushree GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 10Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

applicable to such trust / institution whose registration under section 12AB has become inoperative due to application of first proviso to section 11(7) of the Act and the trust/institution intends to make it operative again. 6. That on being aware of the incorrect code being selected, immediately filed another application

Jayshree Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 27/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 11(7)Section 11ASection 143(1)

deposited within 30 days of collection from the employees then there is default in the payment of PF/ESI in terms of Section 11(7) of the of the Act. The counsel of the assessee claimed that the substantial part was paid within 30 days of its deduction and therefore

Ncdex Investor (Client) Protection Fund Trust, Mumbai vs. The CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1917/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemptions) Ncdex Investor (Client) Room No.601, 6Th Floor, Protection Fund Trust 1St Floor, Akruti Corporate Park, Cumballa Hill, Lbs Marg, Near Ge Garden, Mtnl Te Building, Vs. Kanjur Marg (W), Pedder Road, Mumbai-400 078 Dr. Gopalrao Deshkukh Marg, Mumbai-400 026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtn7481R Assessee By : Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Srinivasu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Abdulkadir Jawadwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 10Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred in invoking provisions of section 11(7) of the Act and denying the exemption claimed under section 10(23EC) of the Act, disregarding the fact that Income received ... facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(E) has erred in not appreciating that provisions of Section 11(7) of the Act would apply only to Income from property held under Trust and not otherwise. 3.4. That on the facts and the circumstances

ITO (Exemption)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Ncdex Investor (Client) Protection Fund Trust), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO and the cross objections of the assessee for all the three assessment years (all three appeals and the cross objections) are dismissed

ITA 856/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.CMA) erred in not appreciating that as per section 11(7) of the Act, where a trust or an institution has obtained registration under section 12AA/12A of the Act and said registration is in force ... claim dual exemptions u/s 10(23EC) as well as u/s 11 of the Act which is not allowable as per the provisions of section 11(7) of the Act? 6. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend delete and /or modify the above grounds of appeal on or before retrospectively

ITO (Exemption)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Ncdex Investor (Client) Protection Fund Trust), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO and the cross objections of the assessee for all the three assessment years (all three appeals and the cross objections) are dismissed

ITA 855/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 143(1)

ITO (Exemption)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Ncdex Investor (Client) Protection Fund Trust), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO and the cross objections of the assessee for all the three assessment years (all three appeals and the cross objections) are dismissed

ITA 854/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(xii)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

find that up to A.Y.2014-15, the assessee trust is indeed eligible for exemption u/s.10(34) of the Act. In fact, the provisions of Section 11(7) of the Act is inserted in the statute only by Finance No.2 of the Act 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015 wherein the assessee trust has been ... only from A.Y.2015-16 onwards and cannot be applicable for earlier years. The year under consideration before us is A.Y.2008-09. Hence, this amendment in Section 11(7) cannot be made M/s. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust applicable for A.Y.2008-09. Accordingly, we hold that the claim of exemption made by the assessee

Association of State Road Transport Undertakings, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

Accordingly the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K.A Manu, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

only obtained benefit of under either section 11 of the Act or section 10(23C) of the Act. In this regard, initially section 11(7) was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act 2014 w.e.f 01-04-2015 and now first and second proviso’s have been inserted to section 11 ... surplus pertains to FY 2009-10 when the appellant was not registered under provision of section 10(23C). The subsequent insertion of section 11(7) and its further amendment are though not applicable but are supportive to our interpretation that earlier provisions of sections 11 and 10(23C) were