Section 11 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 of the 7,190 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 11

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
43 Taxmann.com 411 · 2014 · High Court
524
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund, ESI, and other welfare funds, if deposited by the due date for furnishing the return of income under Section 139(1), are allowable as a deduction and cannot be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) or Section 43B, even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective welfare Acts.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Exide Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
292 ITR 470 · 2007 · High Court
320
citing judgments

The Calcutta High Court held that restricting deduction for leave encashment via Section 43B(f) was arbitrary and contrary to Supreme Court decisions. However, this judgment was later stayed by the Supreme Court.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
265 ITR 562 · 2004 · Supreme Court
241
citing judgments

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

Judgments on Section 11

Kaumara Madalayam, Coimbatore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 680/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.680/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kaumara Madalayam, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Chinnavedampatti Post, Vs. Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore – 641 049. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aabtk 6034B]. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate IjथG की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059915043(1), Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 12.12.2017. :- 2 -: 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 6(18)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle, Chennai, Income Tax Department vs. The Indian Institute of Engineering Technology, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 679/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle-1, (Exemptions), Bengaluru vs. Bangalore Development Authority, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 208/BANG/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissioner Of Bangalore Development Authority, Income Tax, Circle-1, T. Chowdaiah Road, Kumarapark (Exemptions), Bengaluru Vs. West, Seshadripuram S.O., Bangalore North, Bangalore-560020 Pan – Aaalb0060D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri. T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Sri. D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi Dated 8.12.2023 In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Statutory Body Under The Government Of Karnataka & They Are Regular In Filing Their Return Of Income. The Assessee Also Got Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Act W.E.F. 1.04.2003. During The Assessment Year 2008-09, The Assessee Filed Their Original Return Of Income On 25.09.2008 & Claimed Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Act. The Assessee Also Filed The Audit Report Alongwith The Return Of Income. The Return Was Processed & The Ao Accepted The Same. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice Was Issued On Various Dates & The Assessee Also Appeared & Filed Their

For Appellant: Sri. T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Sri. D.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147