“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/S. Amala Jyothi Vidya Kendra Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

ITA 141/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 153(9)

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

Indian Medical Trust, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, Jaipur

ITA 685/JPR/2023[A.Y. 2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 245D(4)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

erred in denying the entire, exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Act by merely stating that - 'since there is a violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, entire exemption claimed u/s.11 is not allowable including the income received from kalyanamandapams' without assigning proper reasons for denial ... ought to have restricted the denial of claim of exemption u/s.11 of the Act to the extent of alleged violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 10. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in treating the alleged difference in the rental income

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1636/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

M/S. A V M Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

Faizan E Burhane Millat Trust, Jabalpur vs. The CIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/IND/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanifaizan E Burhane Millat Cit(Exemption) Trust Bhopal 181/1, Baitla Colony Vfj Society, Ward Shaheed, Abdul Vs. Hameed, Raza Chowk Milk, Scheme Road, Jabalpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatf8671J Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Nd Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. -Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2024

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

charitable purpose and the assessee has been established for the benefit of particular community/religion. Therefore, it was held that as per provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act the benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act are not available to the assessee. Aggrieved by impugned order ... assessee trust and submitted that all these objects clearly manifested that the assessee is religious trust and therefore, the provision of section 13(1)(b) of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The objects of the assesse trust intend to promote the spirituality of Islam

Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria, Bharuch vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/AHD/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2022-23 Vs. Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria, Cit(Exemption) Madresa Road, Tankaria, Ahmedabad. Bharuch-392240, Gujarat Pan : Aabtj 1122 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms. Kinjal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pradap Yadav, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(Exemption)” For Short] Dated 29.12.2022, Rejecting The Application Filed By The Assessee In Form No.10Ab For Registration U/S 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short].

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pradap Yadav, CIT-DR

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

benefit of particular religious community or caste i.e. Muslims. 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 ... serving the public at large and this was sufficient for grant of registration under section 12A of the Act, and the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted only at the time of granting exemption to the assessee, wherein if it was found that

Dasha Shrimali Betails Gnati Suraksha Samiti, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1422/AHD/2019[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmeddasha Shrimali Betails Gnati The Commissioner Of Income Tax Suraksha Samiti, (Exemption), C/O. Neptun House, Ahmedabad. (Godown) Basement, Shre Krishna Shopping Centre, Opp. Aidorado Hotel, Vs. Mithakhali, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [Pan – Aabtd 4797 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. Revenue By Shri. Durga Dutt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

well as in law, the Ld. DIT(E) ought not have rejected the application for registration u/s.12AA filed by the appellant by invoking section 13(1)(b). 3.1 The Ld. DIT(E) has failed to appreciate that the activities of the appellant trust are genuine in nature and conducted ... therefore, the application was rightly rejected for registration under Section 12AA of the Act and also rejected the same by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act. The Ld. DR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in case of Amreli Modh Vanik Community Property

M/S. Islamic Academy of Education, Mangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Bangalore

ITA 610/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 12A

30/03/2022, wherein the learned A.O. has made an addition of Rs. 1,31,85,000/- for the alleged violation of the provisions of section 13[1][c] of the Act. In the assessment order so passed, it has been held that the assessee had collected certain amounts in cash from ... receipts from students were collected by the trustees and hence, constitutes benefit provided to the trustees that is hit by the provisions of section 13[1][c] of the Act. The following are the pertinent observations / findings of the learned A.O. in the assessment order passed:- [a] In course

DCIT, (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 244/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)

equity shares of Sasoon Dock Matsya Shakari Samstha Ltd., and continuing the investment so made, and thereby contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) of the Act. Basing on these two circumstances, learned Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the shortfall in application

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

J. K. Educational Society, Jammu vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 685/CHANDI/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessee society was thereafter called upon to explain as to why it should not be considered as infringement of the provision of Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(3) read with section 11(5) and as to why the exemption claimed may not be disallowed, and the entire ... both the trusts, the transaction of security deposit and rent paid were treated by the AO to be covered under the provisions of section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r.w.s Section 13(3) and 11(5) of the Act. 6.1 In this regard, it was submitted that the assessee

J.K. Educational Society, Jammu & Kashmir vs. DCIT (Exemption)-Circle-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 428/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

J.K.Educational Society, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Hireright Llc, Usa vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 3413/DEL/2023[Hireright LLC ]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kishore Kunal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Siddharth, CIT-DR

Section 10(50)Section 115ASection 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 5Section 9

clients. The act of mere collation of factual information cannot per se be copyrighted as it does not fulfil the requirements enlisted under Section 13(1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act 1957. The reports prepared by the Assessee cannot be termed as 'original literary work as it lacks originality ... literary or artistic or any other copyrightable work. Such a report cannot be copyrighted as it does not fulfil the requirements enlisted under section 13(1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Also, none of the rights as mentioned in Section 14(a) of the Indian Copyright

Shree Variya Prajapati Samaj Yuva Mitra Mandal Mehsana, Mehsana vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 361/AHD/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R

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

subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) has hurriedly rejected the claim of assessee by giving reason of applicability of section 13(1)(b) and not even given opportunity by giving show cause notice by pointing out probable reason of the rejection of 12AB application. 4. Appellant craves leave ... that the assessee’s activities were restricted for benefit to a particular community only, and accordingly, in view of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the assessee was not eligible for grant of deduction under Section 12AA/ 80G of the Act. It was submitted that