“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)

Porwal Yuvak Sangh Kota, Kota vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 708/JPR/2024[2023-24 ]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 12ASection 13

below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-trust is a public religious trust and therefore, outside the purview of section 13(1) (b) and eligible for exemption under section 11. [Para 27] The objects of the assessee-trust are not indicative of a wholly religious purpose ... under such objects would therefore be entitled to exemption accordingly. [Para 41] Further, one has to examine the objects under the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act. It becomes amply clear from the language employed in the provisions that section 13 is in the nature

Sila for Change Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 4275/MUM/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Sila For Change Foundation Commissioner Of Income-Tax A-301, 3Rd Floor, (Exemption) Neelam Centre, 601, 6Th Floor, Plot 249A, Worli, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400030. Mtnl Building, Pan: Abgcs5333L Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra- 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya- AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)

trust or institution are carried out in a manner that the provisions of section11 and 12 do not apply due to operation of section 13(1), or, the trust or institution has not complied with the requirement of any other law for the time being in force as is material ... have always proceeded on the footing that, section 11(1)(a) do not attract forfeiture over the entire income unlike the provisions of section 13(1). In other words, the Courts have held that, if a trust or institution is willing to pay taxes to the extent of its activities

Sila for Change Foundation, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 4274/MUM/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Vaidya- AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule- CIT D.R

Section 12A(1)(ac)

Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur vs. DCIT-Circle-Exemption, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 296/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

JAIPUR g. Whether Id. CIT(A) is justified in allowing exemption u/s 11 & 12 ignoring the fact that assessee violated the provision of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/(b)/(c)/(h) by paying excessive salary and interest to specified persons and also providing interest free loans ... JAIPUR f. Whether Id. CIT(A) is justified in allowing exemption u/s 11 & 12 ignoring the fact that assessee violated the provision of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/(b)/(c)/(h) by paying excessive salary and interest to specified persons and also providing interest free loans

Brahmakshatriya Kanji Damji Hindu Sarvajanik Dharamshala Palitana, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 744/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

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

Asst. Year : - - 2– particular religious community. He accordingly, held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption in terms of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act, and therefore for this reason, he denied the grant of registration to the assessee- trust under section ... therefore the trust is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Therefore, in this case there is clear violation of section 13(1)(b)) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat, reported in 43 taxmann.com

Sree Dharma Sastha Harihara Seva Charitable Temple Trust, Erumely vs. CIT (Exemption), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/COCH/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundrarajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 13(1)(b)

both charitable and religious were not exclusively meant for a particular religious community, then it would not fall under the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act and it was further held that where the assessee was charitable and religious trust, which did not benefit any specific religious ... community and hence, it could not be held that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the assessee trust and therefore, it would be eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Sree Dharma Sastha Harihara Seva Charitable Temple Trust, Erumely vs. CIT (Exemption), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/COCH/2024[2023-24 to 2027-28]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundrarajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 13(1)(b)

Guru Krishnanand Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 129/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.127, 128 & 129/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-2014) Guru Krishnanand Charitable Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 157, P.M. Swamy Colony, Income Tax, 5Th Street, Central Circle 1, Coimbatore 641 002. Coimbatore [Pan: Aaatg 4923A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Irs, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 12ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

been withdrawn for benefit of trustees. The ld.CIT(A) held that the AO has rightly held that the appellant has violated provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) by applying funds of the trust for the benefit of persons mentioned u/s.13(3)(cc) i.e. trustees. However, since cash deposits

Guru Krishnanand Charitable, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Cbe, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 128/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 12ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

Guru Krishnanand Charitable Trust, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assesses in ITA Nos

ITA 127/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, IRS, Addl. CIT

Section 12ASection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271F

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3003/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

profit and loss account, a separate account of receipts and payments, and revenue account in accordance with the Regulations made by the Authority. Section 13(1) provides that every insurer carrying on life insurance business shall, inter alia, in respect of the life insurance business transacted in India, cause

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 6(2), Mumbai. vs. Icici Prudential Life Insurance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 2384/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

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

exemption under Section 11 of the Act, despite disregarding payments made to specified persons, which are claimed to be in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. . Page 3 of 23 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a trust, engaged in educational ... specified entities. . Page 5 of 23 7. Given the above, the Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act had been violated, as the assessee trust had extended benefits to specified persons. Consequently, the AO denied the exemption claimed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

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

Ravindra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Thane

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

ITA 3511/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanravindra Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Ito Ward Exemption, Mandal, Thane 5/8 Kartik Sadan Saverkar Road, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Opp-Gopal Nagar, Dombivli, Quereshi Mansion, Gokhale Maharashtra – 421 201 Road, Naupada, Thane (West), Pan: Aabtr2696A Near Teen Hath Naka, Thane, Maharashtra – 400 602

Section 11(1)(a)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 143(2)Section 250

noticed that an excess salary/remuneration of Rs. 2,29,500/- has been given to trustee Shri Omkar Karkare in violation of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. Thus, the AO made the addition of Rs. 18,58,500/- on account of salary /remuneration paid to the trustees. Accordingly ... made along with necessary documentary evidences submitted by the appellant in support of the say of the appellant and incorrectly invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2)(c) and working out interest on interest free advances given to trustees 4,43,557/- Rs which

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

further seen that the said company is a specified person of the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act., for such reason the assessment was reopened under Section ... same address. In that view of the matter the total amount of Rs. 4,24,39,709/- was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5) of the Act. The next aspect which was enquired into/ discussed was with regard to the genuineness

Kizhakke Kovilakom Trust, Malappuram vs. The CIT (Exemption), Kochi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/COCH/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G(5)(vi)

charitable and religious were not exclusively meant for a particular religious community, then it would not fall under the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act and it was further held that where the assessee was charitable and religious trust, which did not benefit any specific religious community ... hence, it could not be held that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the assessee trust and therefore, it would be eligible to claim exemption under section 11 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Bisa Neema Panchayat Bhawan Trust, M.G Road vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 480/IND/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaa.Y. : 2023-24 Bisa Neema Panchayat Commissioner Of Income- Bhawan Trust, Tax (Exemption), बनाम/ 285, M.G. Road, Bhopal Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aactb4287E Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, C.A. & Ar Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2024

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 253(5)

erred in holding that the activity of the assessee trust is related to the benefit of a particular caste in violation of section 13(1)(b) and as such it is not entitled for registration. 4. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in concluding that the assessee’s object clause ... sole footing that the assessee is created/established for the benefit of particular community/ caste which is a violation of restriction imposed in section 13(1)(b). Ld. AR then drew us to the provision of section 13(1)(b) reading as under: “13(1) Nothing contained in section

Miot Hospitals Medical and Educational Mtrust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

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

ITA 1645/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1645/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Miot Hospitals Medical & Income Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Exemptions Ward-4, No.4/112, Mount Poonamallee Road, Chennai Manapakkam, Chennai-89 [Pan: Aabtm3304L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sundar Raman, Ca अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 161Section 164(2)Section 250

case in denying the exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act on the ground that it had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and 13(1 )(d) of the Act for the Appellant had made an Interest Free Deposit to a specified person within the meaning ... been made in violation of section 11(5) of the Act, that is liable to be taxed and that the violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act does not tantamount to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the total income of the Appellant

Saraswati Mukund Education Society, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, Thane

ITA 4010/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh V. KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 144BSection 147Section 250

addition of Rs.5,70,000/- so made by Ld. Assessing Officer and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A) by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act is incorrect and not in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Accordingly, the 2 A.Y.2013-2014 additions ... payment of car hire charged made to Shri Deepak More and (b) making addition of INR.7,26,352/- by invoking contained in Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3)(cc) of the Act and withdrawing the benefit exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect