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

Canadian Baptist International Ministries, Chennai vs. Incometax Officer (Exemptions), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 438/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chny/2023 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Canadian Baptist International Ministries Ito (Exemptions) बनाम/ No.107 (Old No.93) Pantheon Road, Ward-1, Vs. Egmore, Chennai-600 008. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatc-6239-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri V. Tharish (Ca)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-06-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In The Captioned Appeal Is Denial Of Deduction U/S 11 / 12 As Applicable To A Registered Charitable Trust. Upon Perusal Of Impugned Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee Has Failed To Attend The Appellate Proceedings & Accordingly, The Assessment Was Confirmed By First Appellate Authority. The Ld. Ao Denied The Deduction Since The Assessee Could Not Demonstrate That It Had Valid Registration Under The Act For Impugned Year. Aggrieved As Aforesaid, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri V. Tharish (CA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT)- Ld. DR
Section 11

Ballygunj Society for Children in Pain Chip, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(Exemption), Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 9/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.9/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ballygunj Society For Children In Pain Chip..............................……Appellant 57/14, Ballygunj Circular Road, Ballygunj, Kolkata-700019. [Pan: Aaatb4988N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Exemptions, Kolkata...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Society Registered U/S 12A Of The Act. The Assessee Claimed Deduction U/S 11 Of The Act In Respect Of Income Spent On Charitable Purposes. However, The Assessing Officer/Cpc Disallowed The Expenditure Spent Towards Charitable Purposes For Delay In Filing Of Form 10B. The Cit(A) Confirmed The Additions So Made By The Assessing Officer.

Section 11Section 12ASection 250