Section 11(1A) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 11(1A) 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(1A) is Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (340 ITR 53), cited in 78 of the 71 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 11(1A)

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Deputy CIT
340 ITR 53 · 2012 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, for the purpose of reassessment beyond four years, extends beyond the income tax return to omissions during assessment proceedings. Mere disclosure of a transaction does not constitute true and full disclosure if underlying material facts are withheld.

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
340 ITR 64 · 2012 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

An assessee's failure to fully disclose material facts regarding expenses incurred for tax-free income during assessment proceedings can lead to the reopening of assessment, as it constitutes an omission and failure to disclose necessary information for completing the assessment.

CIT v. First
241 ITR 248 · 2000 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Reopening of assessment proceedings based on an audit party's observation is valid, provided there is prima facie material to support the reopening.

CIT v. Highway Construction Co. (P.) Ltd.
217 ITR 234 · 1996 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Investment of income shortfall in a nationalized bank can be treated as application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11(1) and 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, read with the trust's objects.

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Medical Charitable Trust
248 ITR 41 · 2001 · High Court
8
citing judgments
57 of the Act. II. DCIT (E) Bhopal v. Vaishnavi Polyclinic College Governor by VSK Market Tech Educational Society
122 Taxmann.com 287 · 2020 · ITAT
7
citing judgments
3i Infotech Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT
192 Taxmann 137 · 2010 · High Court
6
citing judgments
PCIT v. Yes Bank Ltd.
135 Taxmann.com 161 · 2022 · High Court
5
citing judgments
United Christmas Celebrations Committee Charitable Trust v. ITO
80 Taxmann.com 173 · 2017 · High Court
5
citing judgments
Virendra v. Appropriate Authority & Ors.
327 ITR 185 · 2010 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 11(1A)

Income Tax Officer, Cumballa Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 48

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Departmnt(Exemption) vs. Gujrati Relief Society, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 166/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.166/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Itd (Exemption)…....…………….....……………....………....Appellant Vs. Gujrati Relief Society, Kolkata...........................................…..…..... Respondent 28B, Dr. Rajendra Road, Bhawanipore, Kol-20. [Pan: Aabag0660J] Appearances By: Shri A. Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Assessee'S Appeal For Deleting The Disallowance Made U/S 143(3) On Account Of Exemption U/S 11 (1A) Of The Act To The Tune Of Rs.7,57,96,828/ - Despite The Facts That The Procurement Of New Capital Asset For Claiming Benefit U/S 11{A) Was Not Made Within The Relevant F. Y 2012-13 & Also Did Not Set Apart Any Fund Either Under Explanation 2 To Section 11/1) Or Under Section 1L(2).

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 1l(2)Section 250