← All Phrases

“Section 2(11)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(11)198 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 2(11)

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 2(11)

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

allowable. Hence, the second question cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 15. Subsequent thereto, we note that the provisions of Section 2(11) and Section 32 of the Act have since been amended by the Finance Bill, 2021 with effect AY 2021-22 and onwards, wherein ... depreciable intangible asset under section 32 of the Act. The Legislature has accordingly amended the provisions of Section 32 and Section 2(11) of the IT Act to specifically exclude goodwill from the ambit of ‘intangible asset’ and claim of depreciation thereon. The amendment brought in by the Finance

ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi vs. Capricorn Identity Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7420/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Acit, Circle 5(2), New Delhi M/S. Capricorn Identity Services P. Ltd, G-5, Vikas Deep Building, Plot No. 18, Vs. Lama Nagar, District Centre, Vikas Marg, New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. Dr For Assessee : Shri Mukesh Jain, Ca Shri Sahil Gupta, Ca Shri Samyak Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 10.05.2019 For Ay 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Considering The Facts That The Business Activities Of The Assessee Company Had Not Commended During Ay 2016-17. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The A.O. Without Considering The Facts That The Assessee Has To Amortize Expenses Made Before The Commencement Of Business As Per The Provisions Of Section 35D Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The A.O. On Account Of Expenses Not Being Revenue In Nature.

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 35D

expenses of this business to be considered permissible deductions and for that purpose the section that we have got to look to is section 2(11) and that section defines the „previous year" and for the purpose of a business the previous year begins from the date of setting