Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 11(1)(d) is Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (89 Taxmann.com 127), cited in 130 of the 82 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 11(1)(d)

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

Depreciation under Section 32 is allowable as an application of income for charitable trusts computing income under Section 11. The amendment to Section 11(6) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, is prospective, applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16.

Dewanchand Builders and Contractors v. Union of India
1 SCC 101 · 2012 · Reported
82
citing judgments

This case is cited for the principle that a decision not founded on reasons, rendered without argument, or sub silentio, does not constitute a binding declaration of law or ratio decidendi under Article 141 of the Constitution.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) v. DGIT (Exemptions)
358 ITR 91 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

An institution carrying out charitable objects, such as education or advancement of general public utility, does not lose its Section 11 exemption merely by collecting fees for activities like campus placements or educational guidance, as this does not constitute carrying on a business.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
268 ITR 128 · 2004 · High Court
65
citing judgments

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. It is not permissible if the Assessing Officer adopted a legally permissible view, one of two possible views, or applied mind to the issues, despite the Commissioner's differing opinion or perceived inadequate enquiry.

Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT
358 ITR 78 · 2013 · High Court
58
citing judgments
GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
360 ITR 138 · 2014 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Earning income or charging fees for activities that serve general public utility does not automatically constitute trade, commerce, or business to attract the proviso to Section 2(15), thus not disentitling an entity from charitable exemptions. The mere receipt of fees for public utility services, without a profit motive, does not negate the charitable nature of the activity.

CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies
345 ITR 362 · 2012 · High Court
40
citing judgments

A one-time fee paid by members, with the understanding that it can only be used for capital purposes, is considered a corpus donation and is not taxable as income. This is especially true when separate fees are collected for services rendered.

DIT v. Shri Ramakrishna Seva Ashram
357 ITR 731 · 2013 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Donations made for a specific purpose are considered capital in nature and cannot be applied for charitable or religious purposes, thus not being deemed income from property for the purposes of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram
91 Taxmann 181 · 1997 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can make enhancements to an assessment during appellate proceedings, provided such enhancements do not amount to introducing an entirely new head of income.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, Madras v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
6 SCC 117 · 1997 · Supreme Court
34
citing judgments

Interest earned on investments made from the principal amount of a fund, even if the principal itself was not brought to tax, can be brought to tax.

Judgments on Section 11(1)(d)

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 520/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

GAYATRI SHIKSHA NYAS,AGRA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/AGR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2289/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. DR D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2251/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

THE FALAHE DARAIN EDUCATION SOCIETY,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, EXMP., AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2111/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr.DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 250Section 69ASection 80G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHENNAI vs. THE ICICI FOUNDATION FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH , MUMBAI

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

ITA 2386/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathashri S.R. Raghunathashri S.R. Raghunathashri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं././././Ita No.2 अपील

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sriram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 80G

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. COSMOPOLIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

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

ITA 575/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan UA, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1656/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

DUDHSAGAR RESEARCH AND DEMENT ASSOCIATION,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

DUDHSAGAR RESEARCH AND DEMENT ASSOCIATION,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CICLE-1, EXEMPTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

KJSL FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5633/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Ms. Shakshi Panday, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 143(1)

SHREE JAGAT GURU BRAHMANAND GAUSHALA SAMITI,PANIPAT vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

ITA 297/DEL/2022[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

SHRI POWAI STHANAKVASI JAIN SANGH TRUST (PUBLICE CHARITABLE TRUST),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in this respect are allowed

ITA 3187/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Powai Sthanakvasi Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Sangh Trust Ward 41(1)(4), (Public Charitable Trust) Mumbai Flat No. 104, Atlantis A Wing Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai - 400076 [Pan: Aatts2580C] Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee : Shri Kirit Sanghvi, Ca Revenue : Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1074570665(1), Dated 17.03.2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.06.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Only Issue Involved In The Present Appeal Is In Respect Of Treatment Of Corpus Fund Donation Of Rs.1,74,01,475/- Received By The 2 Shri Powai Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh Trust Ay 2018-19 Assessee During The Year As Income Chargeable To Tax Without Considering The Provisions Of Section 11(1)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghvi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

SRIJAN CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION) WARD 1(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1392/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Srijan Charitable Trust, Income Tax Officer 36/1 A, Srijan House, Elgin (Exemption) Road, Bhawanipur, Vs. Ward 1(3), Kolkata Kolkata-700020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahts4903K Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 183

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

ITA 2274/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

ITA 2270/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5