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

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 11(1)(d) falls under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to sections 332 to 355 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, the provisions on registered non-profit organisations.

Read the 2025 provisions

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

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 272 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

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'.

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

The true test to determine the character of a levy is the primary object and essential purpose intended to be achieved by it.

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

Charging fees, even when having regard to the economic status of beneficiaries, is permissible for the sustenance of charitable activities, provided it is necessary for operation and running expenses and does not amount to carrying on trade or commerce. This applies even after the introduction of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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)

Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

ITA 1035/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

ITA 1034/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

Dy CIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

ITA 1033/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 80G

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Jain Shwetamber Nakoda Parshwanth Tirth

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA/2/2022HC Rajasthan01 Feb 2022
Section 11(1)(d)

Income Tax Officer (Examption) Ward, Surat vs. Shree Saibaba Satsang Mandal, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)

The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward-1, Mangalore vs. M/S Stella Maris Church, Udupi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3272/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, D.RFor Respondent: N O N E
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

The Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemptions) vs. M/S Choice Foundation

ITA/180/2019HC Kerala11 Nov 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 2(24)(iia)Section 260ASection 263

Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 384/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2014-15]

Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 250

M/S. Indian Institute of Engg. Technology, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

ITA 2092/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2092/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Indian Institute Of Engineering The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology, No. 363, Arcot Road, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption)-Iii, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaatt2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai, Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. Vide Common Order In M.P. Nos. 219 & 220/Chny/2018 In I.T.A. Nos. 2092 & 2093/Chny/2016 Dated 28.06.2019, The Order Passed By The Tribunal In I.T.A. No. 2092/Chny/2016 Dated 22.06.2018 For The Assessment 2011-12 Alone Has Been Recalled For Limited Purpose & Relevant Portion Of The Order Is Extracted As Under: “6. For Ay 2011-12, The Exemption U/S.11 Was Denied Only For The Reason Or Issue That Honorarium Was Paid. This Issue Was Decided In Favour Of The Assessee By The Itat In The Earlier Year & By Following That Order This Issue Was Allowed In This Year As Well In Favour Of The Assessee. The Ao Did Not 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 11(5)Section 2(15)

Suvidha Education Trust, Mehsana vs. ITO (Exemption), Palanpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2409/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2409/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Suvidha Education Trust, I.T.O,(Exemption) 7 Maheshweri Society, Vs. Palanpur. Opp. Jyoti Petrol Pump, Mehsana.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.D.R
Section 11(1)(d)Section 250

Child Care and Youth Development Society, Dehradun vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

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

ITA 2/DDN/2021[-]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Sept 2021

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 02/Ddn/2021 : Asstt. Year : Child Care & Youth Development Vs Cit(Exemption), Society, Near Canfield School, 111/2, Lucknow, U.P.-226010 Bharuwala, Grant Clement Town, Dehradun-248002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabac6869P Assessee By : Sh. Anubhav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Anubhav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 12A(1)Section 2

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ms/.Love in Action Society Nalanchira

Appeal is allowed as

ITA/282/2019HC Kerala08 Sept 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Geeta Vidya Mandir Siksha Samiti, Naraingarh vs. ITO, (E), Ambala

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

ITA 853/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

Apeejay Education Trust, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T.(Exemption), Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)

Dawate Hadiyah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-3, Mumbai

Accordingly, the ground 3 of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4719/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2008-09
Section 12ASection 143(3)

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Satyam Educational Society, Roorkee

ITA 6140/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 273/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 273/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Is Illegal & Against The Law Because The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Examined & Considered The Matter Involved In This Order. 2. That The Donation So Received Was Received For A Specific Purpose & Use, Hence It Was Corpus Donation. The Corpus Donation Cannot Be Treated As Part Of Income & Expenditure Account.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 148Section 263

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Dudhsagar Research and Development Association

TAXAP/404/2020HC Gujarat05 Jan 2021
Section 10(34)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)

Shri. Lad Shakhiya Wani Samaj Kalyan & Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 572/PUN/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax - (Exemptions ) Circle - 1, Mangaluru vs. M/S A. Shama Rao Foundation, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1464/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm I.T.A. No.1464/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. A. Shama Rao Foundation, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle- 13-2-116, Hotel Srinivas Building, 1, Mangaluru G.H.S. Road, Mangaluru-575 001. [Pan:Aaata 1629 B] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee -Respondent) Revenue By Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By Shri V. Srinivasan, Adv. Date Of Hearing 09/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2020 O R D E R

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A