← All Phrases

“Section 13(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(1)715 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT
432 ITR 471 · 2021 · Supreme Court
914
citing judgments

Payments for the supply or use of computer software, where there is no transfer of copyright but only a right to use the copyrighted product, are generally considered business profits and not 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or relevant DTAAs. This principle also applies to transponder fees, which are not taxable as royalty.

Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
374 ITR 118 · 2015 · High Court
499
citing judgments

The existence of an international transaction for Advertising and Marketing Promotion (AMP) expenditure requires the revenue to discharge the burden of proof. An explanation inserted under Section 92B does not automatically make AMP expenditure an international transaction.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

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.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT
332 ITR 340 · 2011 · High Court
359
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment, such as satellite transponders, do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or under applicable tax treaties, especially when there is no transfer of the right to use a process or underlying technology.

DIT v. New Skies Satellite BV
382 ITR 114 · 2016 · High Court
325
citing judgments

An amendment to the Income Tax Act, such as the Finance Act, 2012 amendment to Section 9(1)(vi) defining royalty, does not automatically override or alter the definition of 'royalty' as provided in a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) unless the DTAA itself is bilaterally amended. The definition of royalty in a DTAA remains unaffected by unilateral changes to domestic law.

Judgments citing Section 13(1)

Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Exemption Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1128/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

when trust or institution complied wholly or in part of the income of such trust or institution in violation of section 13(1) of the Act or if they complied with any other law, for the time being in force by the trust or institution as are material ... cancellation of registration in case of any violation under Section 13. The amended Section 12AB(4) does not consider a violation of Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) as specified violations. Consequently, the registration cannot be cancelled on the ground that the assessee has violated Section 13

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)

benefit to certain trustees or related parties within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Act, thereby allegedly attracting the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. On the basis of such alleged violation, the Learned PCIT has further sought to invoke clause (a) of the Explanation ... Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act. In this regard, the Learned AR rightly placed reliance on the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, which is a self-contained code by itself to deal with situations involving alleged benefit to specified persons. He submitted that

Vyasa Vidya Mandiram, Coimbatore vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

ITA 1287/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री मनुकुमारगिरि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं

Vyasa Vidya Mandiram, Coimbatore vs. CIT, Exemptiions, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

ITA 1286/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shris.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Y Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

trusts/endowments too will be entitled to the exemption provided by section 11 of the Act. A religious trust could be ‘public’ or private’. Section 13(1)(a) bars exemption to any private religious trust, which does not enure for the benefit of the public. Section 80G(5)(iii) makes

Shri Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

ITA 8229/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80G

violation of grounds of natural justice for reasons best known to him. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) erred in applying section 13(1)(b) while cancelling registration, ignoring factual position that the assessee trust had not spent any amount for the particular Gnyati or caste. " “1 ... violation of grounds of natural justice for reasons best known to him. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(exemption) erred in applying section 13(1)(b) while cancelling registration, ignoring factual position that the assessee trust had not spent any amount for the particular Gnyati or caste.” 2. Briefly

Shri Surti Modh Vanik Jagruti Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

ITA 8227/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80G

violation of grounds of natural justice for reasons best known to him. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption) erred in applying section 13(1)(b) while cancelling registration, ignoring factual position that the assessee trust had not spent any amount for the particular Gnyati or caste. " “1 ... violation of grounds of natural justice for reasons best known to him. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(exemption) erred in applying section 13(1)(b) while cancelling registration, ignoring factual position that the assessee trust had not spent any amount for the particular Gnyati or caste.” 2. Briefly

Amit Shantaram Bagade Mited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Taxation Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

failed to note that such amount represents 10% of the agreement value and is in accordance with section 13(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which prohibits the promoter from accepting more than 10% of the cost of the flat without registering the agreement for sale

Amit Shantaram Bagade, Thane vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Despande &For Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

failed to note that such amount represents 10% of the agreement value and is in accordance with section 13(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which prohibits the promoter from accepting more than 10% of the cost of the flat without registering the agreement for sale

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

substantial additions on the grounds of alleged unrecorded capitation fees, ITA. No. 26/LKW/2021 3 inflated In-Patient Department (IPD) receipts, and violations of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Later, these original assessment orders were relied upon to form the basis and the satisfaction recorded by the Ld PCIT ... issues before the AO during the subsequent assessment proceedings and their outcome. 4.8 The Ld. AR also submitted that only violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act will not empower the Ld. PCIT (C) to cancel the registration with retrospective effect and further, if all the receipts have

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Everwin Educational and Charitable Trust, Kolathur, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2811/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee trust had acquired properties in the names of their trustees using the trust funds which was in violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) observed that, the subsequent action of trustees bequeathing their legal title in the land parcels ... assessee and held that the act of registration of property in the individual names of the trustees was a clear violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as a benefit accrued to the trustees because the legal ownership was with them and not the assessee trust

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-Surat, Surat vs. Abhyuththan Gram Vikas Mandal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 902/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

case and in law in not allowing the deduction / benefit u/s 11(1) considering the advance given to Trustee as violation of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts ... treated the activities of the assessee as business u/s 2(15) and denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act alleging interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- to trustee Shri Akash C. Mandaviya

Abhyuththan Gram Vikas Mandal, Surat vs. CIT Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 838/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

case and in law in not allowing the deduction / benefit u/s 11(1) considering the advance given to Trustee as violation of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has erred and was not just and proper on the facts ... treated the activities of the assessee as business u/s 2(15) and denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act alleging interest-free advance of Rs. 9,00,000/- to trustee Shri Akash C. Mandaviya

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 803/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(c)

appellate proceedings before it and arbitrarily rejected its claim. He has argued that there has been no violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to debar the assessee trust from its entitlement to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Udaipur -2, Udaipur

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 802/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(c)

appellate proceedings before it and arbitrarily rejected its claim. He has argued that there has been no violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to debar the assessee trust from its entitlement to the benefit of Section 11 of the Income

Asst. Director of It (Exemp)-II, Hyderabad vs. Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (Aware), Hyderabad

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/HYD/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Dr D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2289/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

inference is drawn on an alleged receipt of donation and consequently, the allegation is made that there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. A hypothetical finding is given that because capitation fee is charged, it is not an income in terms of section ... therefore, there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal held that such a reasoning cannot be accepted because if the donations are offered for income and if the department wants to disprove the nature of income on the basis of material, as has been

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Dr D Y Patil Educational Academy, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2251/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 250

inference is drawn on an alleged receipt of donation and consequently, the allegation is made that there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. A hypothetical finding is given that because capitation fee is charged, it is not an income in terms of section ... therefore, there is a violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal held that such a reasoning cannot be accepted because if the donations are offered for income and if the department wants to disprove the nature of income on the basis of material, as has been

Global Council of Zoroastrians Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 4930/MUM/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

would be in violation of Section 11 of the Act; b. the objects allegedly benefit a particular religious community, attracting the provisions of Section 13(1)(b); 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the approach adopted ... further submitted that the mere fact that the trust’s objects refer to a particular community does not automatically attract Section 13(1)(b) at the stage of registration. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dawoodi Bohara Jamat

Global Council of Zoroastrians Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 4928/MUM/2025[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

would be in violation of Section 11 of the Act; b. the objects allegedly benefit a particular religious community, attracting the provisions of Section 13(1)(b); 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the approach adopted ... further submitted that the mere fact that the trust’s objects refer to a particular community does not automatically attract Section 13(1)(b) at the stage of registration. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dawoodi Bohara Jamat

Jan Kalyan Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee brought to our notice detailed findings of the Lower Authorities and submitted as under:- Section 13(1) of the provides that nothing contained in section 11 or 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year ... section 13(3) of the Act during the previous year for a consideration which is more than adequate. The submission therefore, is that section 13(1) of the Act read with 13(2) of the Act are in respect of only denial of exemption claimed under section