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

Sowgood Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT (Exemption) Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3770/DEL/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2026

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: Na M/S. Sowgood Foundation, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Bg-1/36, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abdcs3368J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. R.S. Poonia, Ca Sh. Pawan Chhikara, Ca Sh. Rajat Choudhary, Adv. Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi’S Order Dated 30.05.2025, Having Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/250/2025- 26/1076570562(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Next Comes The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Herein Regarding The Assessee’S Entitlement To Claim Section 12A Registration. There Is Hardly Any Dispute That The Assessee/Appellant M/S. Sowgood Foundation Is A Non-Profit Company Incorporated On 09.01.2020 With Objects Stated To Be In The Nature Of "Protection Of Environment" & Related Activities. It Has Filed An Online Application In Form 10Ab On 16.10.2024 Before The Cit (Exemptions), Delhi Seeking Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac) (Iv) Of The Act. The Cit(E) Passed An Order In Form 10Ad Dated 30.05.2025, Under Section 12Ab(1)(B)(Ii) (B) & Rejected The Registration Under Section 12A On The Following Grounds: A) The Applicant Had Chosen An Inapplicable Limb, Namely Section 12A Which Is Intended For Cases Where An Existing Registration Has Become Inoperative By Virtue Of The First Proviso To Section 11(7); Whereas, In This Case, There Was No Prior Operative Registration At All. (B) The Applicant Was Not Engaged In Charitable Activity But In Commercial Provision Of Services To Schools For A Fee.

Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 194JSection 2(15)

Heggade Seva Sangha, Mumbai vs. CIT(Exemption)Ward 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1633/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2020-21 Heggade Seva Sangha, Cit (Exemptions) Room No. 1, Rajesh Bhavan, Ward-1(3), Opp: Ind Colony, Vs. Mumbai. Kanjur Marg (West), Maharashtra-400042. Pan : Aaath1602H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-05-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06-05-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-Panaji, [Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)] Dated 22-01-2026, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2020-21. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Registered-Trust U/S. 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟). For The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Trust Filed Its Return Of Income On 13-02-2021, Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act. The Return Was Processed By The Cpc, Bengaluru Vide Order Dt. 30-11-2021 Wherein The Claim Of Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Act Was Denied For The Reason That The Assessee Has Not Filed The Requisite Form-10B Within The Prescribed Due Date. The Assessee Thereafter, Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) & It Was Submitted That The Form-10B Was Filed On 12-02-2021, Admittedly After The Extended Due Date Of 15-01-2021. However, The Same Was Available

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12A