“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)

M.G.R.Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

ITA 858/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C. Maheswar Reddy, C.A

Section 12A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hydarabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल

M P Santhosh Kumar, ITO, Chennai vs. Greenpeace Environment Trust, Chennai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 509/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 509/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

trustees/EC members. Hence, the expenses are incurred for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Trust and there is no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) after perusal of the records and submissions of the assessee has rightly deleted the disallowance

M.P. Santhosh Kumar, ITO, Chennai vs. Greenpeace Environment Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A

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

406/Chny/2025 Green Peace India Society and Green Peace Environment Trust has same trustees/members/ volunteers/ administrative personnel etc.) by invoking section 13(1)(c) of the Act when the assessment order passed by the assessing officer clearly established the fact that there was violation of provisions of section 13(1 ... trustees. The violation is under 13(1)(c). 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provision of section 13(1)(c) when the Income Tax Act clearly prohibits the utilization of funds for the benefits of trustees and other interested persons

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

case, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee appeal despite the fact that there is violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act because of the investment by the Trust in prohibited mode of investment that it would lead?" 2. "Whether ... that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Shri Sankat Mochan Balaji Mandal, New Delhi vs. CIT Exemptoin, Delhi

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

ITA 1910/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)

Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 80G(5)(iii)

from the owner of the premises from which the applicant operating charitable activity, undertaking under section 2(15) of the Act, Declaration under section 13(1)(c) of the Act, list of donors and the details of the donation received not provided. Justification of claim of approval as sought

Shree Kutchi Jain Gurjar Mandal, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption)-, Mumbai

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

ITA 3551/MUM/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3551/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2025-26 Shree Kutchi Jain Gurjar Mandal Flat No.3, Plot No.08, Aakash Bldg. Mumbai, Rajawadi, Mumbai-400 077 Pan : Aapts7890H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri K Gopal A/W. Ms. Neha Paranjpe Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 2 Shree Kutchi Jain Gurjar Mandal Vs. Cit(Exemption)

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 44A

deed/MOA, the trust is involved in activities which is favoring a particular religious community "Kutchi Gurjar Jain Community". This is in violation of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income tax Act ('the Act' hereafter) and is also defined as violation as per clause (d) of explanation to Section 12AB

Shri Sajisavai Moxdham Seva Trust, Savarkundla, Dist. Amreli vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 849/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 848 & 849/Rjt/2024 Shri Sajisavai Moxdham Seva Vs. The Cit (Exemption), Trust-Amreli, Savarkundla, Ahmedabad Amreli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbts9964K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

benefit of particular religious community or caste only but it is to be established for the benefit of general public at large. Further, section 13(1)(b) as the trust object is limited to benefiting specified religious community or caste can only be invoked at the time of association

Shri Sajisavai Moxdham Seva Trust, Savarkundla, Dist. Amreli vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 848/RJT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

Dasha Shrimali Kandoi Gnati, Rajkot vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 96/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Diesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. SR. DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 2(15)

commencement of the Act are as per Annexure 8 and all the details are also in filed Form 10AB. Therefore, the provision of section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to our trust even though the trust created or established for the benefit ... assessee Trust. registered since 1962entry no. 1141/61 dt. 13.02.62. prior to the coming into force of Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions of section 13(1)(b) are therefore not applicable to the assessee-trust. Documentary evidence with regard to incorporation of the assessee-trust on 13

Shree Aath Paragana Gurjar Prajapati Samaj Trust, Ahmedabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur

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

ITA 2025/AHD/2024[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : - Shree Aath Paragana Gurjar Prajapati The Cit(Exemption) Samaj Trust Vs. Vejalpur Prajapati Bhavan Chatrala Ahmedabad. Sola Railway Over Bridge Naittar Chede, Sola Ghatlodia. Pan : Abfts 9086 E (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Prakash D. Shah & Shri Saiyam Shah, Ar : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

Gujarat such as Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, and Surendranagar. The assessee was required to explain how such restriction did not violate the bar contained in section 13(1)(b) of the Act and why its application should not be rejected. In reply dated 21.03.2024, the assessee submitted that while the area ... Leuva Patel Seva Samaj Trust [(2014) 221 Taxman 75 (Guj)], to support the contention that the question of applicability of section 13(1)(b) was to be examined only at the stage of assessment and not at the time of grant of registration under section 12AB. 3.4 The CIT(Exemption

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2058/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Suraiya/Sukhsagar Sayal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 13(1)

seen that the assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 & 12 in view of the violation of Section 13(1) and 13(2) of the Act. 5.1. The AO noticed that for the year under consideration the assessee has claimed dividend income as exempt. The assessee was asked

DCIT, Kautilya Bhawan vs. Jamsetji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Suraiya/Sukhsagar Sayal, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 13(1)

DCIT Exemption, Ghaziabad vs. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2839/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

giving better choice to students for selecting better institution. He further submitted that the assessee society has not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The AO has doubted the quantum incurrence of expenses, however, the expenses of similar nature and were allowed in the previous ... common man in remote areas to find out about the existence of a genuine institution. There is no violation of provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act by the assessee. Merely a fact that the assessee has incurred expenses on advertisement alone will not be sufficient to hold

DCIT (Exemption), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6248/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

Monkombu Aundi Iyer Educational and Charitable Trust, Idukki vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Kochi

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

ITA 911/COCH/2024[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 80G

registered under section 12A; Lack of a clause ensuring that funds will be invested strictly in accordance with section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d); No clause confirming that the trust’s activities shall be carried out only in India; No clause ensuring that the income

Dr K R Shroff Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Exmp, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 769/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

case 13. Ground nos.1 to 5 pertain to denial of exemption under Section 11 & 12 of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act read with Section 13(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption under Section ... transfer of 80,00,000 equality shares of e-Infochips Limited. Therefore, this transaction was covered in the mischief of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act. According to the Ld. CIT(A), by executing the series of transactions, Shri Pratul K. Shroff had derived

ACIT (Exemption) Circle 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Dr K R Shroff Foundation, Ahmedabad

ITA 1205/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68

ITA Nos.1205 & 769/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 ACIT(E) vs. Dr. KR Shroff Foundation Page 1 of 24 IN THE