← All Phrases

“Section 11(2)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(2)(c)14 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(2)(c) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(2)(c)

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.

CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation
164 ITR 439 · 1987 · High Court
153
citing judgments

For charitable trusts, the set-off of excess expenditure from prior years against the income of a subsequent year is considered an application of income for charitable purposes. Similarly, the repayment of loans borrowed for legitimate charitable activities is also treated as an application of income.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions
363 ITR 230 · 2014 · High Court
117
citing judgments

For a charitable trust, a violation of Section 13(1)(d) does not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11 on its total income. Instead, only income derived from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 11(5) or income diverted under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) is taxable.

CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society
330 ITR 21 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Charitable institutions are entitled to claim depreciation on assets even when the cost of acquisition has already been treated as an application of income for exemption purposes, as this does not constitute a double deduction.

1. Father Mullers Charitable Institutions 363 IT 230 (Kar.) 2. DIT(E) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust
249 ITR 533 · 2001 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Income of a trust that is taxable at the maximum marginal rate should be taxed accordingly, while other income is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust
198 ITR 598 · 1992 · High Court
98
citing judgments

When computing the income of a charitable trust for exemption under Section 11, depreciation must be allowed as an application of income based on commercial principles. This does not constitute a double deduction.

Judgments citing Section 11(2)(c)

Patan Education Society, Satara vs. ITO Exemption 1, Pune

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

ITA 705/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Patan Education Society, Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1, Shikka Mension, Patan S.O., Pune. Patan, Satara- 415206. Pan : Aaatp8412H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Visakhapatnam [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Order Under Section 143(1) Without Appreciating That The Adjustment Made Was Beyond The Purview Of The Provisions Of Section 143(1).

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 11Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

date under section 139(1). 7. The Ld CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's appeal without appreciating that provisions of section 11(2)(c) and section 13(9) were not applicable to the assessee's case. 8. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another

ACIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Section 11(2)(a) of the Act, had prescribed a time limit for filing the Form No.10, even before the statutory amendment to Section 11(2)(c), introducing the time limit for filing the said Form No.10. The Ld.CIT(A) had accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee in directing

Income-Tax Officer (Exemption)-2(3), Mumbai, Mtnl Building, Cumbala Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4573/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ravi GanatraFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Rajasthan Ophthalmological Society, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

fixed deposits with the same bank satisfies the requirements of section 11(5). It was further submitted that the amendment brought in section 11(2)(c), requiring filing of Form 10 two months before the due date of return, is applicable from A.Y. 2023–24 and cannot be applied retrospectively

ITO (Exemption), Ward Vadodara, Vadodara vs. Mml Choudhry Charitbale & Education Trust, Hari Nagar

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

ITA 645/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

date as specified in the Act. Therefore, the claim of assessee u/s. 11(2) is not allowable as per the provisions of section 11(2)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that

Kerala Catholic Association, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exem Ward 1(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 945/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Kerala Catholic V/S. Ito Exemption, Ward 1(4), Association बिधम Mumbai Kca Bhavan, St. Francis Of Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Asis International School, Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te P.L. Lokhande Marg, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Chembur, Mumbai, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Maharashtra-400043 Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk3121E Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

after making an addition of Rs. 1,34,00,000/- on account of violation of provisions of section 11(2)(c) r.w.s. 13(9) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A). The assessee did not make any compliance

National Culture Fund, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemp

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

ITA 2722/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11(2)Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH

National Culture Fund, Fifth Floor D-Block vs. AO Ward-Exempation-2(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2721/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 11(2)Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH

Vishal Mumbai Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3944/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrivishal Mumbai Shikshan V/S. Exem. Ward 2(4), Mumbai Prasarak Mandal, Mumbai बनाम Piramal Chamber, Lal Adarsh Vidyalaya, Adarsh Baug, Parel Vidyalaya Marg, Siddharth Mumbai-400012 Nagar, Goregoan (E), Mumbai-400104 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatv0440K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri. Ayush ChhFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Exemption, Mumbai. The return was filed belatedly on 27.05.2017 declaring nil taxable income. The AO observed that as per the provisions of section 11(2)(c) Form No. 10 has to be filed on or before the due date for furnishing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. However

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)

that the Form 10 must be furnished on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act [section 11(2)(c)]. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the amended provisions of section 11(2)(a) of the Act held that the appellant has not fulfilled

Kedarnath Vidya Prasarini, Nehru Nagar, Kurla vs. ITO, Peddar Road, Mumbai

In the result, appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 1321/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Choughule (All.CIT) SR DR
Section 10Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 11(5)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

2), but failed to file the requisite prescribed form before due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act as envisaged in section 11(2)(c) of the Act. But the auditor filed the report under Form No.10B and has quantified the accumulation to the tune of Rs.70 lakhs ... lakhs remained to be invested. In assessment, the Ld.AO added back the same with the total income of the assessee for violation of section 11(2)(c) of the Act for non submission of Form No.10. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But the Ld.CIT

Sha Kalidas Pragji Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3032/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice C.V. Bhadang (Rtd.) () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(c)Section 12ASection 139(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Before Justice C.V. Bhadang (Rtd.) (President) & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM

Ksb Care Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1 (4), Mumbai

ITA 1760/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhksb Care Charitable Vs. Ito (Exm)- 1(4) Trust Piramal Chambers, C/O Ksb Ltd Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbaipune Road, Mumbai-400012. Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk4311M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Biren Gabhawala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(C)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT

Grama Vidyodaya Sangha (Regd), Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 345/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Kotresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234A

11,146/- claimed by assessee u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act is justified on the reason that as per the provisions of section 11(2)(c) of the Act, if the statement referred to in clause (a) of section 11(2) of the Act is not furnished

Section 11(2)(c) — 14 case laws | BharatTax