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

Chetna, Sector-C vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Ram Tirath Marg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 May 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2019-20 Chetna, Vs Assistant Director Of Income Tax Aliganj, Lucknow Pan: Aaatc1696A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl /Jcit-3 (Appeals) Ahmedabad Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.01.2026, Wherein The Ld. First Appellate Authority Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cpc Under Section 154 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2019-20, Passed On 14.02.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Considering The Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Rejected The Exemption U/S 12A Saying That There Was No Valid & Timely Submitted Form 10B & Form No 10 On Record, Even The Form 10B (Audit Report) Was Submitted On 31/10/2019 Within The Prescribed Time & Form 10B (Audit Report) Available On Income Tax Portal. 3. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Has Also Not Given Any Finding About The Calculation Of Tax On Income Over Expenditure As Aop In Case Of Rejection Of Exemption U/S 12A. 4. That The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Against The Law & Principle Of Natural Justice. 1 A.Y. 2019-20 Chetna

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Inspira Global Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2488/MUM/2026[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2026-2027

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 2488/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) & 2. Ita No. 2369/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) Inspira Global Cit (Exemptions), Foundation Room No. 601, 6Th 3/B, Hind Saurasta Vs. Floor, Mtnl Te Chs Ltd. Andheri Kurla Building, Cumballa Road, Marol Naka, Hill, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aahci7703E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Punit Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”], Both Dated 18.12.2025, Passed In Form No.10Ad Rejecting The Assessee’S Application For Regular Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]And Consequential Rejection Of Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. Since Common Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G(5)

Inspira Global Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2369/MUM/2026[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2026-2027

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 2488/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) & 2. Ita No. 2369/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2026-27) Inspira Global Cit (Exemptions), Foundation Room No. 601, 6Th 3/B, Hind Saurasta Vs. Floor, Mtnl Te Chs Ltd. Andheri Kurla Building, Cumballa Road, Marol Naka, Hill, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aahci7703E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Punit Shah, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(E)”], Both Dated 18.12.2025, Passed In Form No.10Ad Rejecting The Assessee’S Application For Regular Registration Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"]And Consequential Rejection Of Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. Since Common Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8Section 80G(5)