Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 13(1)(c), Section 13(3), Section 10(34), Section 11, Section 11(5), Section 12AA.

Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation

Q: How many judgments cite Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation?

19 judgments on BharatTax cite Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation (253 ITR 593), spanning 2017 to 2026.

253 ITR 593High Court2002#6020 most cited

What is Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation authority for?

Where only a part of a trust's income is diverted in contravention of Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d), only that diverted portion of the income is taxable, not the entire income. This means tax should be levied on the relevant income or a part of it, potentially at the maximum marginal rate, rather than denying exemption under Section 11 for the entire income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation · 253 ITR 593 · Section 13(1)(c) · Section 13(1)(d) · Section 11 · Section 164(2) · charitable trust income · partial denial of exemption · maximum marginal rate · diverted income

Sections most often in play

Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 10(34)Section 11 Section 11(5)Section 12AA Section 12AB(4)Section 13(1)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 13(l)(d)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 13(2)section 10(33)section 164 section 11(5)section 13(1)(c)section 13(3)maximum marginal rate section 13(1)section 11(1)(a)

Judgments citing Director Of Income Tax v. Agrim Charan Foundation

Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv

Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ted to the assessee u/s.12AA of the Act on 22.01.1979 (supra). 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed, as above. 12. 1. Similar views were expressed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) vs Agrim Charam Foundation reported in 253 ITR 593 (Del) ; Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions reported in 363 ITR 230 (Kar); Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (E) vs Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation reported in 249 ITR 533 (Bom) ; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Red Rose School reported in 163 Taxman 19 (All). Ev…

AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed

ITTA/79/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

For Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYAFor Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue )

Section 151Section 260

…violation of Section 13 (i) (d) of the Act is liable to tax. The aforesaid view l-ias been taken in DIT (Exemptionf v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbahai Foundation Trust [2001] 114 Taxman 19/249 ITR 5i)3 (Bom') and in IT (Exemptionf v. Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593 by Bombay and Delhi High Courts respectively. It is pertinent. to mention that the aforesaid decisions were relied on by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another v. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions l2ol4) 363 ITR 230 (Kar). We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Division Benches of B…

Jaipur Engineering College Jaipur Rajasthan Society, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 164(2)

…res held in contravention of s. 13(1)(a) and not to the entire income. Therefore, income other than dividend income shall be taxed at normal rate of taxation under the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in a judgment reported in (2002) 253 ITR 593 (Supra).Reading of the proviso to Section 142 is very clear that the legislature has clearlycontemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or a part of the relevant income at the maximum m…

Shree Hazarimal Somani Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT Exemption Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are dismissed

ITA 104/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104, 2297 & 2298/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL,AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104, 2297 & 2298/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) ACIT Exemp. Cir. 2, Shree Hazarimal Somani बिधम/ Memorial Trust 5th floor, Piramal 214, Empire House, Dr. D. N. Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAATS1884L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1444, 2715 & 2717/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) DCIT Cen. Cir.…

M/S. Gopal Govardhan Goshala, Sanchore, Jalore vs. DCIT, Circle-Exemption, Jodhpur

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

ITA 189/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Gopal Goverdhan Goshala Vs The Dcit Pathmeda, Taluka Sanchore, Circle-Exemption, District- Jalore (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg 0739 J

Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…he Act. In support of this contention, the ld AR placed reliance following case laws. 1. CIT vs (Exemption), Pune vs Audyogik Shikshan Mandal (ITA No. 764 of 2016 dated 18th Dec. 2018), Bombay High Court. 2. Director of Income Tax vs Agrim Charan Foundation, 253 ITR 593 (Del.) The ld. AR submitted that the addition of notional interest and addition made u/s 40A(3), shall be liable to be deleted, once the assessee is granted exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee is making new contentions and hence they require examination by tax authorities. 7. We heard the r…

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA No. 1828 to 1831/MUM/2022 (Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12) Mumbai Education Trust DY.CIT (E)-2(1) Room No. 608, 6th Floor, MTNL General Arun Kumar Vaidya Chowk, Bandra Reclamation, Exchange Bldg, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Pedder Rd, Mumbai-400 026 Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No.AAATM0985G Assessee by : Sh. Rajesh Dharap, Revenue by : Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR Date of hearing: 22.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH :- 01. These are four a…

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1829/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dwaraka Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 723/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 4

…ns (supra) inter alia, places reliance upon the decision of this Court in DIT v/s. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbahai Foundation Trust 249 ITR 533 and the Delhi High Court in the case of IT (Exemption) v/s. Agrim Charan 8 ITA No.723/PUN/2015, A.Y. 2007-08 Foundation 253 ITR 593. Moreover, on a plain reading of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that the legislature did not contemplate the denial the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the Trust. If the interpretation sought to be advanced by the Revenue is accepted, it would lead to grave injustice as any mistake minor and/or misdemnour invo…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Krupanidhi Educational Trust

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA/47/2013HC Karnataka22 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 12ASection 13Section 260

…tax under Section 164(2), proviso is applicable only to that part of income of the trust which has forfeited exemption and not the entire income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Agrim Charan Foundation reported in (2002) 253 ITR 593 (Delhi) has held that the legislature has clearly contemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or a part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate. The Co-ordinate bench…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exem) vs. Krupanidhi Education Trust

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA/231/2016HC Karnataka20 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10(23)(c)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 260Section 260A

…tax under Section 164(2), proviso is applicable only to that part of income of the trust which has forfeited exemption and not the entire income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Agrim Charan Foundation reported in (2002) 253 ITR 593 (Delhi) has held that - 15 - the legislature has clearly contemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or a part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate.…

The Commissioner of vs. Krupanidhi Education Trust

Appeals stand disposed of

ITA/230/2016HC Karnataka20 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10(23)(c)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 260Section 260A

…tax under Section 164(2), proviso is applicable only to that part of income of the trust which has forfeited exemption and not the entire income. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Agrim Charan Foundation reported in (2002) 253 ITR 593 (Delhi) has held that - 15 - the legislature has clearly contemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or a part of the relevant income at the maximum marginal rate.…

DCIT (E)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. J.R.D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3154/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 164

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “SMC” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 3082/Mum/2018 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now assessed by the Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Income-tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAATT0165F Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA N…

J.R.D. Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (Now Asssessed by the DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3082/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 164

Goverdhan Sigh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 517/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 54F

…tified—Intention of assessee from the very beginning was to purchase residential house and he having done so within two years of sale of plot, he was entitled to exemption under u/s 54F in respect of the amount invested.” DI vs Agrim Charan Foundation (2002) 253 ITR 593/ 172 CTR 95 (Del.) which was a case relating to the investment made in the specified asset under a bonafide belief and on a wrong representation made resulting into contravention of S. 11(5), but the Tribunal allowed the benefit of S.11. It was held as under: “Charitable trust—Exemption under s. 11—Contravention of s. 11(5)— Tribunal found that…

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. The Times Centre for Media and Management Studies, New Delhi

Appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 1389/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Pramod Kumar & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. : 2010-11 Ito (E) The Times Centre For Ward-2(3) Media & Management Studies Vs. New Delhi 10, Daryaganj Pan : Aaact3554H

For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 25

…not to the entire income. Therefore, income other than dividend income shall be taxed at normal rate of taxation under the Act." A similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in a judgment reported in DIT (Exemption) v. Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593 (Delhi). Reading of the proviso to section 142 is very clear that the Legislature has clearly contemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under section 11 by virtue of violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or a part of the relevant income at the maximum…

I.T.O(E)-II, Kolkata vs. Future Education Rescarch Trust., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1031/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

…res held in contravention of s. 13(1)(a) and not to the entire income. Therefore, income other than dividend income shall be taxed at normal rate of taxation under the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in a judgment reported in (2002) 253 ITR 593 (Supra).Reading of the proviso to Section 142 is very clear that the legislature has clearly contemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income or a part of the relevant income at the maximum…

Lokmanya Tilad Janakalya Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 384/NAG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 1Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 40

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 384/Nag/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09. Lokmanya Tilak Janakalyan Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur. Vs. Circle-2, Nagpur. PAN AAATL3003C. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 22-11-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 9th January, 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)- I, Nagpur date…