How many judgments cite DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse?

86 judgments on BharatTax cite DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (259 ITR 280), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 13(1)(d), Section 10(34), Section 10(35), Section 12A, Section 143(3).

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

259 ITR 280Supreme Court of India2003#1331 most cited

What is DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse authority for?

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse · Section 13(1)(d) violation · Section 11 exemption denial · charitable trust investments · denial of tax exemption · Supreme Court ruling · investment modes for trusts · maximum marginal rate · Section 164(2) · trust income exemption

Also reported as

179 CTR 225126 Taxmann 365

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 13(1)(d)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 12A Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

section 13(l)(d)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 13(2)section 164 section 10(35)section 11(5)section 13(1)cancellation of registration maximum marginal rate section 10(34)section 11(1)(a)

Judgments citing DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

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

…This decision does in no way support the case of the appellant as the facts are entirely different. After considering the issue in totality I am of the view that the reliance of AO on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of DIT Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280 (SC) is categorically applicable on the facts of the case. The AO has pointed out that in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse the amount advance was also without interest and without security. I therefore hold that the AO was entirely justified in concluding that the benefit of exemption u/s 11 will not be applicable to the trust as there is a clea…

Skin Inst. &Public Service Cha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/417/2005HC Delhi02 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10Section 12ASection 264

…r the Revenue argued that the Tribunal’s findings are justified. She relied upon the ruling of this Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Charanjiv Charitable Trust 267 CTR 305 (Delhi) as well as Director of Income Tax vs Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 179 CTR 225 (SC). It is submitted that as long as any benefit passed to a settler or founder of the institution, regardless of whether the larger purpose of the charity was sub-served, its entitlement to receive the benefit under law so as to exclude exempted incomes, ceased. She, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal’s finding should not be disturbed. 11.…

Dy D.I.T. (E)-I(1), Mumbai vs. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Mmrda), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 4177/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5576 & 5580/M/2007, 4177/M/2008, 5761/M/2010 & 6756/M/2011 Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Dy. Director of Income Tax M/s. The Mumbai Metropolitan (Exempt)-I(2), Region Development Authority R. No.504, Piramal Chambers, (MMRDA), Vs. 5th Floor, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Parel, Mumbai - 12 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 51 PAN: AAATM7106R (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.5421 & 5422/M/2007, 3841/M/2008, 5957/M/2010 & 6674/M/2011 Assessment Years: 2…

M/S. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai vs. The ADIT(E) RG- 1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3841/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, D.R

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 13

M/S. Modi Charitable Fund Society, Ghaziabad vs. Addl.CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3365/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal :Asstt. Yrs: 2010-11 Modi Charitable Fund Society, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Modi Bhawan, Modi Nagar. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaatm 0977 G ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ahuja CA &For Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ssment cannot be snatched away merely on the basis that the assessee has duly been registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act. 8. I have also gone through the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income-tax Vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280 (SC). This decision, in my opinion, will not be of any help to the assessee if the primary or dominant purpose of the assessee is not charitable within the definition given u/s 2(15). The AO, in my opinion, is correct in law in denying the exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act. 9. In view of these facts, in my opinion, no interf…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/342/2011HC Delhi15 Feb 2012

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 260A

…ITA No.342-2011 Page 1 of 46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.342 of 2011 Reserved on :December 12, 2011 Date of Decision : February 15, 2012. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .... Appellant Through: Mr.Deepak Chopra, Advocate VERSUS NOVA PROMOTERS & FINLEASE (P) LTD. …..Respondent Through Mr. C.S.Aggarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Prakash Kumar and Mr.Arta Trana Panda, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HO…