Which cases are most cited on Section 13(1)(c)(ii)?

GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption) (360 ITR 138) — 51 citing judgments; CIT v. Gujrati Samaj (349 ITR 559) — 47 citing judgments; Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (305 ITR 170) — 37 citing judgments; Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT (254 ITR 733) — 37 citing judgments; DIT(E) v. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (43 Taxmann.com 300) — 28 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 13(1)(c)(ii)?

BharatTax indexes 71 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 13(1)(c)(ii) (Section 13(1)(c)(ii)).

← All Phrases

“Section 13(1)(c)(ii)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 13(1)(c)(ii)?

GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption) (360 ITR 138) is the decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(c)(ii), cited in 51 judgments on BharatTax. Charging fees, even when having regard to the economic status of beneficiaries, is permissible for the sustenance of charitable activities, provided it is necessary for operation and running expenses and does not amount to carrying on trade or commerce. This applies even after the introduction of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)(ii)71 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(c)(ii) is GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption) (360 ITR 138), cited in 51 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)(c)(ii)

GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)

360 ITR 138 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Charging fees, even when having regard to the economic status of beneficiaries, is permissible for the sustenance of charitable activities, provided it is necessary for operation and running expenses and does not amount to carrying on trade or commerce. This applies even after the introduction of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Gujrati Samaj

349 ITR 559 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in an earlier year can be set off against income of the current year as application of income. Excess expenditure by a trust can be set off against its income.

Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

305 ITR 170 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

Once an Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issues a notice under section 148, they can assess or reassess income related to other issues not originally included in the reasons recorded.

Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT

254 ITR 733 · 2002 · High Court

citing judgments

The burden of proof lies on the Assessing Officer (AO) to establish that a trust or charitable institution is hit by the provisions of Section 13. General allegations or mere transactions with interested persons are insufficient unless concrete benefit is proven.

DIT(E) v. Charanjiv Charitable Trust

43 Taxmann.com 300 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on a capital asset even if its cost was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. Allowing depreciation does not constitute double allowance.

Deputy Director of Income Tax v. All India Football Federation

62 Taxmann.com 362 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

The proviso to section 2(15) should not be invoked to deny exemption to a sports organization if its activities are not predominantly in the nature of trade, commerce, or business.

Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) v. DICT

263 ITR 13 · 2003 · High Court

citing judgments

Violating provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(b) disentitles an assessee from claiming exemption, as the funds of the assessee were diverted and misutilized.

Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. DCIT

308 ITR 202 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The income of a society for mutual benefits of its members is exempt from tax, as demonstrated in this case concerning a cooperative bank.

Judgments citing Section 13(1)(c)(ii)

Hind Charitable Trust, Lucknow vs. PCIT(Central), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 26/LKW/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: Na Hind Charitable Trust Vs. Pcit(Central) Lucknow Block B, Church Road, Indira Uttar Pradesh-226010. Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Tan/Pan:Aaath5498M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal,CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 132

Excess of Income over Expenditure’ has simply extracted the text from the set-aside and nullified order which alleged violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and has proceeded to make the addition. 6.11 As a sequitur, we find that the Ld. Principal Commissioner’s reliance on alleged violations

ITO(E)-1(3), Mumbai vs. Indian Rugby Footbal Union, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethito(E)-1(3) Vs. Indian Rugby Football Union R. No. 6Th Floor, Mtnl 2Nd Floor, Nawab House, M K Road, Bldg, Cumballa Hill, Dr. G D Marine Lines, Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Mumbai-400002. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan/Gir No: Aaat11523Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 250

held to be excessive and ITA No.5298/MUM/2025/AY 2020-21 Indian Rugby Football Union thus, there was no violation of provision of section 13(1)(c)(ii) rws 13(2)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) set aside the disallowance made by the AO and allowed benefit/exemption ... remuneration paid to Mr. Nasser Husain cannot be held to be excessive and accordingly, the same was not hit by provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) rws 13(2)(c) of the Act. Similarly, in his order u/s 250 of the Act dated

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina

Section 11Section 2(15)

assessee is hit by in terms of section 13(3) of the Act and the assessee is hit by provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which denies provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which denies provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii ... well. Hence, the directly or indirectly benefitted the related parties as well. Hence, the Appellant is also hit by provision of section 13(1 )(c)(ii) of the Act, which Appellant is also hit by provision of section 13(1 )(c)(ii) of the Act, which Appellant is also

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee-According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee— According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 829/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 3

benefit of exemption may not be disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) of the Act exists in AY 2017-18 under consideration. The assessee filed its reply to the said ... period before the 1st day of June, 1970;" 4.4 Second Proviso to sec 13(1)(c) clearly states that provision of section 13(1)(c)(ii) would not apply in case the person referred to in sub-section 3 of sec 13 has used such property for any period before

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 827/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 3

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

prohibited person arose, the trust will lose exemption in respect of the entire income. Since the trust had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act on the entire surplus of the assessee amounting

Advantage India, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

case in invoking the provision of section 12AA(3) of the Act on the basis of his finding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) are applicable on the assessee. 4. Without prejudice to grounds above, order of cancellation of registration is a quasi-judicial order, having serious ... Central) on the basis of his finding that the provisions of section 11 and section 13(1)(c)(ii) are applicable on the assessee. The ld AR submitted that a onetime violation due to ignorance and that too for a very short duration cannot be a sole ground for cancellation

Mahesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-68(6), Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

money with M/s Nissan Developers and Properties Ltd. which was a specified person of the assessee and was hit by both the sections 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. The same was added by the AO in the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 u/s 1417 r.w.s

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee—According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Delhi vs. Artistic Finance Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

ITA 2650/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee—According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee

Institute Management Committee Iti Jhalawar, Jhalawar vs. ITO Ward Jhalawar, Jhalawar

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Assessee In This Appeal Has Raised The Following Grounds;

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee—According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exmp), Ghaziabad vs. Pardada Pardadi Educational Society, Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5149/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT- DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(cc)

assessee under Section 11 of the Act and made the additions totaling to Rs.6,22,62,017 by invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read Pardada Pardadi Educational Society [A.Y 2018-19] with Section 13(2)(c) by stating that the remuneration paid to Mrs. Renuka Gupta ... salary payment. Hence, the action of Assessing Officer to deny the exemption u/s 11 of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(c) is incorrect. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record

Sai Shiva Educational Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemp) - 2(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee are allowed subject to the directions given elsewhere in respect of Ritika Hotels Pvt

ITA 4082/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. Vajani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 68

Officer, it could be observed that no evidence has been brought on record against the appellant to prove that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) could be applied to the appellant's case. Appellant had clearly established that the advances made to the trustee Shri. Arun Kumar Muchhala

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-Circle-2 (1), Nagpur vs. Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 337/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A

exemption of section 11 of IT. Act merely on the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3). states that if any part of income or any property of the trust is applied directly or indirectly ... ground no.2, raised by the Revenue relates to the disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha, Wardha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 336/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 69A