← 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)

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

within the meaning of the statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging ... Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had rightly denied the exemption in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a) & (b), as the assessee had leased its property to a concern in which trustees were substantially interested. 2. On the facts

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7608/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

within the meaning of the statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging ... Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had rightly denied the exemption in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a) & (b), as the assessee had leased its property to a concern in which trustees were substantially interested. 2. On the facts

Swanand Social Federation, Pune vs. Exemption, Circle, Pune

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

ITA 2679/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2679 & 2678/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: - Swanand Social Federation, Vs. Exemption Circle, R-4, Kohinoor Estate, Pune Pune. City, Mula Road, Khadki, Pune – 411003. Pan: Abncs9104J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora, Ca Sampada Ingale, Riya Oswal Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting Assessee‟S Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12A & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 18.09.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)Section 185

namely Shri Sanjeev Sumatilal Shah as such the trust has violated the provisions of section 185 of the Companies Act 2013 and section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act. Also, the trust has not furnished any credible evidences and its reasons as to why the said withdrawal was made ... i.e.Swanand Social Federation. Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application on the ground that Assessee has violated any other law applicable and also violated Section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 It is an admitted fact that the Assessee Company i.e. Swanand Social Federation had given Rs.50

Swananad Social Federation, Pune vs. Exemption, Circle, Pune

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

ITA 2678/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2679 & 2678/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: - Swanand Social Federation, Vs. Exemption Circle, R-4, Kohinoor Estate, Pune Pune. City, Mula Road, Khadki, Pune – 411003. Pan: Abncs9104J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora, Ca Sampada Ingale, Riya Oswal Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Rejecting Assessee‟S Application For Grant Of Registration U/S.12A R.W.S 12A & 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Both Dated 18.09.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)Section 185

namely Shri Sanjeev Sumatilal Shah as such the trust has violated the provisions of section 185 of the Companies Act 2013 and section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act. Also, the trust has not furnished any credible evidences and its reasons as to why the said withdrawal was made ... i.e.Swanand Social Federation. Ld.CIT(E) has rejected the application on the ground that Assessee has violated any other law applicable and also violated Section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 It is an admitted fact that the Assessee Company i.e. Swanand Social Federation had given Rs.50

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

genuine business enterprise but rather as a medium to channel trust funds for the benefit of specified persons in contravention of provisions of Section 13(1)(c). According to him, the nature of these transactions raises concerns regarding financial propriety as they indicate a structured arrangement to divert funds

Radheshyam Agarwal, Bhopal vs. The PCIT, Central, Bhopal

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT

Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Ranchi vs. Dukhharan Memorial Charitable Trust, Ranchi

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

ITA 261/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 250

Manorama Sinha respectively. The Assessing Officer held that the above payments were excessive and unreasonable, and accordingly invoked the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, thereby denying exemption under section 11 of the Act and making additions to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved ... income under section 11 on ground that assessee-trust paid salary to one of trustee and, thus, there was violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c), in view of fact that payment of salary was being made since inception of trust and it had not been disputed by revenue

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3331/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

that no part of its income of the trust/assessee directly or indirectly shall be used for the benefit of any person specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Act and no part of the income or property of the trust was ever used or applied for the benefit ... persons specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as a matter of fact the assessee has furnished audited accounts before the Ld. CIT(E) which were not considered and overlooked while rejecting the registration

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3328/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

that no part of its income of the trust/assessee directly or indirectly shall be used for the benefit of any person specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Act and no part of the income or property of the trust was ever used or applied for the benefit ... persons specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as a matter of fact the assessee has furnished audited accounts before the Ld. CIT(E) which were not considered and overlooked while rejecting the registration

Income Tax Officer(E) Ward- 2(4), New Delhi, Civic Centre New Delhi vs. Prakash Sewa Trust, Paschim Vihar

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

directly i.e., get around the mandate of the exception carved out by Section 13(3)(b) read with Explanation (iii) by invoking Section 13(1)(f) of the UP VAT Act." 6. PROPOSITION 2: once purchase of subject immovable property by assessee trust is continuously and without any adverse inference

Neptune Fincot Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeded ground no

ITA 3946/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69A

1-4-2021, since notice had not been issued within time frame as indicated by provisions of section 149(1), read with section 13(1) of Information Technology Act, 2000, same was to be quashed. 6. Further Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal vs ITO (supra) also

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

copy thereof to the person therein named by modes provided in section 282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

ADIT, Chennai vs. S A A Ispahani Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2125/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Mr. G. Seetharaman, FCAFor Respondent: 17.11.2025
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

order in the case of Kapurchand Srimal v.CIT Andhra Pradesh 131 ITR 451 and directed for further investigation on the violation of the Section 13(1)(c) by the assessee Trust, where the Tribunal has stated as below:- “It is well known that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction ... ITAT remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to give a finding regarding the violation of provisions contained in section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant para is reproduced as follows; “5. We have heard both the counsels and perused the relevant records

Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai

ITA 6544/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv. & MrFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 35ASection 80

donations paid/granted. 2.3. It is submitted that the considering the non-compliance with the provisions of Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the Appellant did not claim the benefits of Section 11&12 of the Act. Accordingly, the Appellant is fully justified

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

without appreciating that the increase in salary was excessive, unreasonable and without any basis, thereby violating the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) of the Act." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... relationship to the trustee, which clearly amounts to conferring undue benefit upon a specified person u/s 13(3), thereby attracting the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 3. "On facts and circumstances of the case

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 ... constitute “charitable purpose” under section 2(15), and did not constitute “charitable purpose” under section 2(15), and that it was hit by section 13(1)(c). The AO accordingly assessed that it was hit by section 13(1)(c). The AO accordingly assessed that it was hit by section

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

account or from the bank account of the society- Kulwant Kaur Kukreja Educational Society, Dehradun. (iii) There is clear violation of provisions of section 13(1) of I.T. Act which prohibits any trust/society from diverting its income directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred ... correctly examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO has also not examined the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act which prohibits any trust/society from diverting its income directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-3, Bengaluru vs. Sarakki Educational Society, Bengaluru

ITA 1992/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also