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)

Periyasamy Pillai Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

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

ITA 2824/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2824/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Periyasamy Pillai Educational The Income Tax Officer Trust, No. 4, Aishwarya Complex, Vs. (Exemptions), Ward 4, 41, Duraisamy Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaatp9255C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai, Dated 05.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Dismissing The Appeal Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Officer That The Issue Of Assessing Corpus Donation As Income Of The Trust Would Not Fall For Consideration Under Sec.154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

Adarsh Shiksha Sansthan, Delhi vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(1), New Delhi

ITA 7785/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Adarsh Shiksha Sansthan, Vs Ito, The Kids Elementary School, Ward(E)-1(1), B-2 Block, Phase-2, New Delhi. Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaata1783A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Devi Dayal Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi Dated 30.07.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That The Impugned Order Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld. Cit (Appeals)-40, New Delhi Dated 30.07.2019 Is Bad In Law & Wrong, Incorrect & Illegal On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & Legal Position. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Legal Position That Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Net Addition At Rs. 14,17,467 /- When ,On The Contrary. 3. Rs. 8,20,000 Received Were Towards Specific Corpus Donation For Land & Building Fund Under Section 11(1)(D) Of Income Tax Act 1961 & Rs. 18,40,000 Received Towards Life Membership Fees Were Capital Receipts,. ,And, Out Of Gross Income Rs. 57,03,327 The Appellant Trust Had Proved The Balance Application Of Funds Of Rs. 24,92,268 (I.E. Actual Application Of Rs. 33,12,268 - Rs. 8,20,000 Allowed By Ld. A.O.) Towards Construction Of Community Hall

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 857/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar

ITA 807/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)