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

Orissa Assembly of Small and Medium Enterprises, Cuttack vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/CTK/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24 Orissa Assembly Of Small & Vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Medium Enterprises, Khapuria, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Aaato 1832 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2026 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Addl/Jcit(A)- 9, Mumbai Dated 18.3.2026 In Appeal No. Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai/10061/2022-23 For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Vijaya Singh, Ld Sr Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & An Intimation Came To Be Issued U/S.143(1) On 4.12.2024, Wherein, The Assessee Has Been Denied The Benefit Of Registration U/S.12A Of The Act & The Entire Receipts Of The Assessee Has Been Brought To Tax. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Filed Rectification Application U/S.154 Of The Act, Which Was Rejected On 2 Assessment Year: 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Ambika Prasad Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijaya Singh, ld Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

M/S Shri Phool Singh Januthan Shiksha Sammittee, Bareilly vs. Assessment Unit, Through Exemption Ward, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 521/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 M/S Shri Phool Singh Januthan Vs Assessment Unit, It Shiksha Sammittee, B-52, Utsav, Department Through Pilibhit By Pass Road, Mahanagar, Exemption Ward, Bareilly, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh 243122 Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aacas9202R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pavan Kumar Nath, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.06.2015, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C For The A.Y. 2022-23 On 7.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Low, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of ₹ 71,00,000/-Brands Loan Repayment As Application Of Income Under Section 11 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Ignoring The Express Provision Of Explanation (6) To Section 11(1) Of The Act, Which Permits Such Treatment In The Year Of Repayment From Current Income. 2. That The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Loan Was Availed & Utilised Prior To 31.03.2021 When The Assessee Was Exempt Under Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act & That No Application Under Section 11 Of The Act Had Ever Been Claimed In Respect Of Such Utilisation, Thereby Ruling Out Any Double Deduction.

For Appellant: Sh. Pavan Kumar Nath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 250