← 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)

Daivadnya Samjonnati Parishad Mahajanwadi Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1141/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde a/w Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

observe that assessing officer in his order has observed that this trust was formed for benefit of a particular community and thus attracted section 13(1)(d) of the Act. We observe from the record that the main object for which the trust was registered was for the benefit

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1743/MUM/2024[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

passed order u/s 263 of the Act on 17.03.2021 for making denovo assessment to verify applicability of provisions of section 13(1)(d) on the issue of holding of 2421 shares of M/s. Tata Sons by the assessee. In pursuance of order passed u/s 263 of the Act, the assessing ... found that assessee did not substantiate the investment in shares were covered by the exceptions provided in proviso (i) and (ia) of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) held that order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

passed order u/s 263 of the Act on 17.03.2021 for making denovo assessment to verify applicability of provisions of section 13(1)(d) on the issue of holding of 2421 shares of M/s. Tata Sons by the assessee. In pursuance of order passed u/s 263 of the Act, the assessing ... found that assessee did not substantiate the investment in shares were covered by the exceptions provided in proviso (i) and (ia) of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) held that order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous

Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust, Godhra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat at -Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

funds were misused for the trustees' personal gain. - Funds intended for charitable purposes were utilized directly by the trustees, indicating a violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 7.1. Despite the gravity of the survey findings, the AO did not scrutinize or apply the provisions of Section 13

Rawat Bal Vidha Niketan Samittee, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Jaipur

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

ITA 660/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 11Section 13(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 164

payments were made from the income of the Society including far construction at house of the trustee and his relatives. Thus, provision of section 13(1)(3) and 13(1)(d) of the Act are violated. Further, benefit of trust exemption u/s 11 of the Act denied

Rawat Bal Vidha Niketan Samittee, Jaipur vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Jaipur

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

ITA 659/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT)
Section 11Section 13(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 164

payments were made from the income of the Society including far construction at house of the trustee and his relatives. Thus, provision of section 13(1)(3) and 13(1)(d) of the Act are violated. Further, benefit of trust exemption u/s 11 of the Act denied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle, Chennai, Income Tax Department vs. The Indian Institute of Engineering Technology, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 679/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

that the excess payment of Rs. 70,25,780/- made by assessee to sister trust without adequate security did not violate provisions of section 13(1)c) of the Act.” 4. Facts of the case: The assessee is a registered public charitable trust, registered U/s.12AA of the Act, vide ... Rs.1,11,900/- to M/s. Meenakshi Soundarajan in the form of honorarium to the relative of the founder of the Trust by violating section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the assessee has shown an :- 4 -: amount of Rs.70,25,780/- as loan receivable from another trust (sister concern

Kanchan Devi Bhag Chand Jain Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 805/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 8Section 800(5)Section 80G

Agarwal Samaj Chorasi Pravasi Trust and not for general public. This action of the assessee trust was considered in violation of provision of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the assessee trust was given a show cause notice stating as to why the registration should ... Agarwal Samaj as submitted as per Clause-4(1), same is meant for benefit of Agarwal Samaj Girls only. Thus Violation of Section 13(1)(b), specified violation under clause (d). 2.6 As discussed in sub para 1 that assesse trust is making distinction on the basis of religion

Kanchan Devi Bhag Chand Jain Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 804/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 8Section 800(5)Section 80G

Agarwal Samaj Chorasi Pravasi Trust and not for general public. This action of the assessee trust was considered in violation of provision of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the assessee trust was given a show cause notice stating as to why the registration should ... Agarwal Samaj as submitted as per Clause-4(1), same is meant for benefit of Agarwal Samaj Girls only. Thus Violation of Section 13(1)(b), specified violation under clause (d). 2.6 As discussed in sub para 1 that assesse trust is making distinction on the basis of religion

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

which was confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that (i) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (ii) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(2)(h) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (iii) The assessee ... violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) – AY 2018-19 (iv) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 2(15) – AY 2018-19 ITA No. 4154/Mum/2023 – AY 2014-15 3. The assessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and under section

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

which was confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that (i) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (ii) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(2)(h) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (iii) The assessee ... violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) – AY 2018-19 (iv) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 2(15) – AY 2018-19 ITA No. 4154/Mum/2023 – AY 2014-15 3. The assessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and under section

Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central 3, New Delhi

ITA 1803/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 246ASection 80G

above discussions, it is requested that for violation of the provision of Section 11(1)(a), Section 11(1)(d) and Section 13(1)(c) of the Act as detailed above, withdrawal/cancellation of registration under Section 12AB(4) of P a g e | 4 Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society Vs. Pr.CIT ... under Section 12AB(4) of the Act on account of violation of provisions of Section 11(1)(a) Section 11(1)(d) and Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 6.1. The Ld. PCIT thereafter, on 16.08.2023 issued a show cause notice which was intimated by and under letter dated

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1221/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

For Appellant: 1. "A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 244ASection 245Section 250Section 80G

where the income of the assessee claiming exemption u/s 11 of the ITA, is not exempt by virtue of section 13(1) (c) or 13(1) (d) of the ITA, tax shall be charged on the relevant income at maximum marginal rate. 2.4 As stated above, the Trust reiterates ... where the income of the assessee claiming exemption u/s 11 of the ITA, is not exempt by virtue of section 13(1) (c) or 13(1) (d) of the ITA, tax shall be charged on the relevant income at maximum marginal rate. As stated by the appellant, the Trust

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Education Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 2/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

accordance with the services provided by them. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount paid to the specified persons by invoking the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows ... r.w.s. 13(2)(c)r.w.sl3(3) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the salary/honorarium paid to 4. Trustees, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, read ITA-2,10,11 &12/CHD/2024 7 with Sections 13(3) and 164(2) thereof invoking the provisions of Section

Assisstant Commissoner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 12/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

accordance with the services provided by them. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount paid to the specified persons by invoking the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows ... r.w.s. 13(2)(c)r.w.sl3(3) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the salary/honorarium paid to 4. Trustees, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, read ITA-2,10,11 &12/CHD/2024 7 with Sections 13(3) and 164(2) thereof invoking the provisions of Section

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 11/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

accordance with the services provided by them. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount paid to the specified persons by invoking the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows ... r.w.s. 13(2)(c)r.w.sl3(3) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the salary/honorarium paid to 4. Trustees, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, read ITA-2,10,11 &12/CHD/2024 7 with Sections 13(3) and 164(2) thereof invoking the provisions of Section

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 10/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

accordance with the services provided by them. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount paid to the specified persons by invoking the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, and also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held as follows ... r.w.s. 13(2)(c)r.w.sl3(3) of the Act. Thus, the AO disallowed the salary/honorarium paid to 4. Trustees, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, read ITA-2,10,11 &12/CHD/2024 7 with Sections 13(3) and 164(2) thereof invoking the provisions of Section

Shree Hindu Smashan Sanstha, Amravati vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2, Exemptions, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/NAG/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)

regards the addition of ` 23,32,216, on account of investment in violation of provisions of section 11(5) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Act, we find that there is no scope of adding back the investment as an income only. The income arising out of such investment

Jaipur Engineering College Jaipur Rajasthan Society, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 261/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 164(2)

CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR assessee has made payment to specified persons covered u/s 13(3) of the Act and thus there is violation of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s 13(2)(g) of the Act and therefore, benefit of exemption u/s 11 is not allowable to the assessee ignoring that under ... proviso to section 164(2) only the part of income not exempt u/s 11 due to applicability of section 13(1)(c) can be charged to tax at MMR but exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied in toto. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

Sri Karpagavinayagar Education and Charitable Trust, Palani vs. Income Tax Officer, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 263/CHNY/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.263/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Charitable Trust, 1, Thalayuthu, Exemptions Ward, Palani 624 618. Madurai. [Pan: Aagts7098L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate & Shri B.K. Gopilal, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer In Denying Exemption

For Appellant: Shri R. Thulasi Ram, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)

along with insurance of ₹.1,64,923/-. The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee asking to explain why violation under section 13(1)(c) of the Act should not be quantified and exemption under section 11 & 12 of the Act should not be denied. The assessee offered ... Officer was that the assessee purchased the above said vehicle and registered in the name of the trustee is a clear violation under section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Further, the case of the Assessing Officer was that the income or property of the assessee was diverted in favour