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

Reassessment proceedings can be initiated based on an audit party's information pointing out the existence of a law, provided the statutory conditions for reassessment are met. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a factor at the stage of reopening.

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

Investments made by a trust in a nationalized bank are considered as application of income for charitable purposes, provided they align with the trust's objects. This applies even if the expenditure falls short of the 85% threshold stipulated by Section 11(1) of the Income Tax Act.

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)

The Excutive Board of the Methodist Church in India, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3341/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3341/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Executive Board Of The Methodist Asst. Dit (Exemptions)-1(2), 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Church In India बनाम/ 1, Prospect Chambers, Ground Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. 313, D. N. Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatt 5754 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shankar K. Jalghar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Mittal सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 02.03.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. Ground No. 1 - Re: Reopening Of Assessment For Assessment Year 2005- 06 Is Invalid & The Consequent Re-Assessment Is Illegal:

For Appellant: Shri Shankar K. JalgharFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 50C

ITO, WD-1(3), Kolkata vs. The Young Mens Chritian Assoication of Calcutta, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1244/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Income Tax Officer (E) V/S. The Young Mens Ward-1(3), 6Th Floor, Chritian Association Of 10B, Middleton Row, Calcutta, 25, Jawarharlal Kolkata-71 Nehru Road, Kolkata-67 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Kolkata Dated 21.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit(Ex)-I,, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 25.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Set Off Of Brought Forward Deficits Of Income & Expenditure Accounts Of Earlier Years With The Surplus Of The Current Year Beyond The Scope & Ambit Of Section 11 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Appreciating The Essence Of Section 11(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Virtue Of Which Fifteen Per Cent Of The Surplus Can Be Set Apart Or Invested As Per Provisions Of Section 11(5), But No Set-Off Of Earlier Deficit Is Allowed To Be Set-Off From Future Surplus & The

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)