Section 11 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 11 is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 2,006 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 11

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

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.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

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.

Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
292 ITR 470 · 2007 · High Court
320
citing judgments

Section 43B(f) of the Income-tax Act is unconstitutional and arbitrary. Leave encashment is a trading liability and not subject to the restrictions of Section 43B(f), thus allowable as a business deduction under Section 37(1).

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.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
214
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.

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.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
201
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.

Judgments on Section 11

SHREE TARDEO JAIN SWETAMBER MURTI PUJAK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5923/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarshree Tardeo Jain Swetamber Vs Income Tax Officer (E) Ward 2(3), Murti Pujak Sangh Mumbai 8/E/72, Sonawwala Building, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Pan:Aaets6368M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi & Vinita Nara Respondent By : Shri Priyanka Mashilkar (Sr.Ar) Date Of Hearing : 25/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity The “Ld. Cit(A)”], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2018-19, Date Of Order 21.07.2025. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The National E- Assessment Centre, Delhi (For Brevity The ‘Ld. Ao’) Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Date Of Order 19.04.2021. 2 Shree Tardeo Jain Swetamber Murti Pujak Sangh 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust & During The Assessment Year The Assessee Filed The Return Along With Form No.10. Since The Assessee Is Registered Trust & Eligible For Deduction U/Sec. 11 Of The Act The Computation Of Income Available For Accumulation Is As Follows: Sr. No. Particulars Amount(Rs.) A. Gross Receipts 94,21,849/- B. Less: 15% Benefit U/Sec. 11(1)(A) (14,13,277/-) C. Less: Application Of Income For Purpose Of (29,43,668/-) Trust(Accepted By Ld. Ao) D. Net Receipt Available For Accumulation 50,64,903/-

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Priyanka Mashilkar (Sr.AR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

ITA 733/RJT/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Apr 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 718/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2026-27) Lohana Yuvak Pragti Mandal Cit (Exemption) Sanganwa Chowk, Lohana, Room No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhawan Vs. Mahajanwadi Rajkot (Vejalpur), Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Gujarat-360001 Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380015, Ahmedabad. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatl0911H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 766/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2026-27) Chunilal Bhagwanji Anath Gaushala Cit (Exemption) Panjraple Trust Vs. Room No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhawan Near Mahaprabhuji’S Bethak Jam (Vejalpur), Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Khambhaliya, Jam Khambhaliya Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Gujarat- 361305 Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380015, Ahmedabad. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatc2457R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 767/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2026-27) Dhirajlal Naranji Jasani Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption) Plot No. 330, Gidc Phase Ii Aji Ind Vs. Room No.609, Floor-6, Aayakar Bhawan Estate Rajkot (Vejalpur), Nr. Sachin Tower, 100 Foot Gujarat-360003 Road, Anandnagar-Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380015, Ahmedabad. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd1590N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Showing 120 of 2,006 · Page 1 of 101

...