“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)

Shri Kalu Mal Shorimal Nathumal Rangwala Private Faimly Dharamnath Trust, Amritsar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 229/ASR/2022[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

without considering the fact that the appellant trust has come in to existence before commencement of Act and there is no violation of section 13(1) (c) of I T Act. 6. That the Assessee craves fo9 permission to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal with approval ... applied for registration on the basis that one of the trust members is withdrawing salary Rs.12,60,000/- as allowance which contravening the section 13(1) (c) of the Act and also the main object of the trust works to member which is not the general public at large this

ACIT, Circle (Exemption), Jodhpur vs. M/S. Vidya Bhawan Society, Udaipur

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

ITA 325/JODH/2019[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

without appreciating the fact that the assessee society has made investment amounting to Rs. 37,350/- and thus provisions of section 13(1)(d)(iii) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were clearly attracted in this case. 1 | P a g e 2) On the facts ... without appreciating the fact that the assessee trust has violated the provisions of section 11(5) of the Act and therefore as per section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, benefits of section 11 & 12 are not allowable. 3) On the facts and the circumstances of the case

Shree Amreli Modh Vanik Community Property, Amreli vs. The CIT-(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee are found devoid of merits and the same is hereby rejected

ITA 141/RJT/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Granting Registration. The Assessee Has Not Replied To The Above Notice, After Two Reminders, The Assessee Submitted The Details Stating That The Trust Is Maintaining & Providing Property Prominently Known As “Modh Mahajan Vadi” To The Modh Mahajan & Other Communities People On Various Occasions Of Marriage, Social Gathering, Social Events, Lecturers Etc., Along With Other Charitable Activities For General Benefits Of Community & Public At Large & Regularly Complying All The Provisions Of The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, Including Filing Audit Reports & Giving Charity Contribution To The Charity Commissioner Regularly.

Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

benefit of a particular community i.e. "Amreli Modh Vanik" which does not endure for the benefit of the public, and thus, provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are fully applicable in this case. In view of the above said the applicant does not satisfy ... trust cannot be termed as charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and against the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee has not produced any documentary evidences in support of its claim and the case was relied upon by the assessee

ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida vs. Shobha Agnihotri, Noida

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Memebr D-4, Sec-27, Noida – 201 301 Noida-201 301 Pan No. Aewpa 0847 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

next question is whether the decree directing the tenant to deliver possession-of the premises to the landlord was passed in contravention of Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. That subsection provided that: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other ... decree or order could be passed on one of those grounds in suit or proceeding instituted by a landlord against a tenant Section 13(1) prohibited the Court from passing a decree or order for recovery of possession of any premises in favour of a landlord against a tenant except

DCIT (Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. All India Society for Electronics & Computer Technology, Bhopal

ITA 927/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

A.Othat such payments are madeto provide benefits to the persons covered u/s 13(3) of the Act which violates the provision of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing exemption ... included in the total receipts, ignoring the finding of the AOthat the society has violated the provisions u/s2(15) as well as section 13(1)(c) of the Act and assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s11 and 12 of the Act. 4. The order

Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research Society, Udaipur vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal (C.A)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, (CIT-DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)

ground that activities of the Society are being carried out contrary to the provision of Section 11, 12 and sub-section 13(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is also bad in law. ITA Nos. 04 & 05/Jodh/2020 Pacific Academy of Higher Education And Research Society, Udaipur. That ... trust or institution are not genuine (ii) The activities are not carried out in accordance with its object (iii) There is operation of section 13(1) meaning thereby that income does not ensure for the benefit of general public or is for benefit of particular religious community or caste

Global Health Research and Management Institute, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Jaipur

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

ITA 397/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 115BSection 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 153A

manner that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 do not apply to exclude the income of the assessee-society due to operation of Section 13(1). Accordingly, the registration of the assessee-society u/s 12A is hereby cancelled by invoking section 12AA(4) with effect from 1.4.2014, i.e., the date

Mahadevia Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Jaipur

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

ITA 396/JODH/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 153A

manner that the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 do not apply to exclude the income of the assessee- society due to operation of Section 13(1). Accordingly, the registration of the assessee-society u/s 12A is hereby cancelled by invoking section 12AA(4) with effect from 1.4.2014, i.e., the date

M/S. Gopal Govardhan Goshala, Sanchore, Jalore vs. DCIT, Circle-Exemption, Jodhpur

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

ITA 189/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Gopal Goverdhan Goshala Vs The Dcit Pathmeda, Taluka Sanchore, Circle-Exemption, District- Jalore (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg 0739 J

Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 40Section 40A(3)

confirming the denial of the benefit u/s 11 and 12 on the ground that the appellant has violated the provision of Section 13(1)( c), 13(1)(d) by – (a) holding of shares of Rs.11,200/- in a company called M/s. Parthvimeda Panchgavy Utpad Pvt. Ltd. (b) investing Rs.36 ... share capital of M/s. Prithivimeda Panchgavya Utpad Pvt Ltd. (for short ‘’PPUPL) as on 31-03-2014, which is in violation of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. (b) The assessee has shown investment of Rs.56.00 lacs towards purchase of an agricultural land. It was noticed that

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

with NIL—It was further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee—According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents ... taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of proviso to Section 164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)— 11 Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jhunjhunu. Amount said to have received as donation was added back to income of assessee

M/S. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalroe vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

ITA No.533/Bang/2022 M/s. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH

Panineeys Sanskrit Colleges Trust, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemptions)-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 220/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Panineeya Sanskrit Vs. Ito(Exemptions)-3 College Trust Aaykar Bhawan Sy.No.103, Basheerbagh Vivekananda Nagar Hyderabad-500 004 Dilsukhnagar Hyderabad-500 060

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 120Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

loan to trustees Shri D.Ravi and Shri D.Jagdish Prasad of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,36,114/- respectively in violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the AO while completing the assessment did not consider the income form business

DDIT, Chennai vs. Sri Vekkaliamman Educational and Charitable Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 970/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 970/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Director Of Income- M/S. Sri Vekkaliamman Tax (Exemptions)-Ii, V. Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai – 34. No. 108, East Madha Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013. [Pan: Aafts-7863-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. G. Seetharaman, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Seetharaman, CA

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

where managing trustee is proprietor. The ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant submissions held that the appellant did not violate the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act and thus, is entitled to exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A) order, the Revenue ... which managing trustee was a partner has got benefitted by way of diversion of fund through civil contract, which violates provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. But, the ld. CIT(A) without appreciating relevant facts simply held that there is no violation referred to u/s. 13(1

Parab Maratha Samaj, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1821/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Parab Maratha Samaj, Nfac, Delhi बिधम/ 10, 5Th Floor Mahohar Bldg, Priti Kanha, Chitable Path, Vs. Dadar(W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatp4197P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Shah, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 09.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

contained in S.13(1)(c) or S.13(1)(d) and Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) has to be applied. 8. The conditions stipulated in Section 13(1) can be summarized in the following manner:-- 8 I.T.A. No. 1821/Mum/2022 Parab Maratha Samaj Exemption u/s 11 & 12 shall not be allowed ... company, loans to trustee's relatives) 9. Here in this case, there is no violation made by the Trust and accordance with section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Act. Thus, only if there is any violation of u/s 13, then only MMR is applicable on that

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

considered the orders of the lower authorities. The only issue in this appeal is that while there is a violation of provision of Section 13(1)(c) and 13 (1)(d) of the Act whether the trust looses exemption „on whole of its income‟ or only that part ... 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 denying the exemption u/s 11 and 12 on ground that since section 13(1)(d) recognizes investment only in specified assets, failure to invest in such specified business would disentitle the assessee for exemption- CIT(A) had allowed the assessee

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1829/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2169/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)

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

being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust; iii) the activities are being carried out in a manner which attracts section 13(1) of the Act; and iv) the trust has violated the provisions of any other law and the order holding that such violation has occurred

Chamber of Indian Charitable Trusts, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT/ Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2168/MUM/2021[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & MrFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. AR)

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