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

Shri Shamjibhai Harjibhai Talavia Charitable Trust, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 73/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Shamjibhai Harjibhai Talavia Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, Income-Tax (Exemption), 50 Feet Road, 7-Parsana Society, Ahmedabad Rajkot-360002 Pan : Aacts 8845 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04.12.2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Ahmedabad [Herein-After Referred To As “Cit(Exemptions)”] Dated 23.03.2021, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Challenging The Validity Of Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By The Ld. Cit (Exemptions) In The Present Case:- “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Order Passed By Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred As To The “Pr. Cit”] Is Bad & Illegal & Requires To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Association of Mutual Funds in India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3201/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3201/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit(Exemption)-1(1) बिधम/ Association Of Mutual Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Funds In India Vs. Mtnl Building, Cumballa 71, 7Th Floor One Hill, Mumbai-400026. Indiabulls Centre Tower- 2, Wing B, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaca5550A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Shri Samir Kapadia Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 28.10.2022 For The Ay. 2018-19. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Following The Tribunal Order In Assessee’S Own Case For Ay. 2012 13 & Ay. 2013-14 Wherein Exemption U/S 11 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Was Allowed To The Assessee. According To The Revenue, The Tribunal While Granting Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Has Not Considered The Proviso To Section 2(15) Of The Act As Well As The Recent Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Acit(Exemptions) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Shri SamirFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

Aabahana, Cuttack vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Berhampur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.225/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Aabahana, Vs Ito, Exemption Ward, Berhampur At: Malyabanta, Nachuni, Khurda-752028 Pan No. :Aabta 9704 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.04.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1052225643(1), For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Return Of The Assessee Came To Be Filed On 27.09.2018 For The Relevant Assessment Year. In The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act, The Exemption U/S.11 Of The Act Had Been Denied On The Ground That There Was Delay In Filing The Form 10B. The Assessee Had Filed Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act & The Cit(E), Hyderabad Had Condoned The Delay In Filing Of The Form 10B. The Rectification Application Had Been Allowed & The Assessee Was Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.11 Of The Act. Subsequently, Another

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154