“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/A Adinath Jain Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 85/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.84 & 85/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Adinath Jain Trust Exemptions Ward-2, 21, V.V.Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai. Chennai-600 112. Pan: Aaata 6919J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT

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

when it was held in the order "that the same (property Advance) could not be held as investment or deposit as stated in section 13(1)(d) of the Act". The learned CIT(A) had held that there is was no violation of section 13(1)( d) but arbitrarily dismissed ... land, but the assessee could not produce any evidences. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated loans & advances of Rs.27,50,000/- as violation of section 13(1) (d) of the Act, and thus, rejected exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for both the assessment years. The Assessing Officer

M/S Adinath Jain Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions, Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 84/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT

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

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal for AY 2015-16 is dismissed

ITA 1445/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1445 & 1446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Breach Candy Swimming Dcit Cc– 5(3), बिधम/ Bath Trust R. No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air Mumbai India Building, Nariman Vs. Point, Mumbai-40 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatb0133F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 24.12.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 For Ay 2014-15 & 2015-16. 2

For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Waglay, Ld. AR

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकरअपीलसं

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri V C Charantimath, Bagalkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri.V.C.Charantimath, Bagalkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Sri. Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sagha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2776/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Sri Basaveshwar Veershaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2775/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

ITA Nos.2775, 2776 & 2777/Bang/2017 ITA Nos.64, 65 & 66/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.235 & 236/Bang/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

The Income-Tax Officer (Exemption) Ward 2(1), Mumbai vs. Sai Shiva Education Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 124/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2006-07 The Income-Tax Officer Sai Shiva Educational Trust, (Exemption) Ward 2(1), Ground Floor, Amar Mahal, Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Vs. Near Chandan Cinema, A.D. Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Juhu, Road, Mumbai-400049. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaats 2744 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. D.C. JainFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

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

erred in concluding that the provisions law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act are not applicable to the tion 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act are not applicable to the tion 13(1 ... grab of advances for construction of school building in violation of the provis building in violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii)? ions of section 13(1)(c)(ii)? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstan Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Mehta Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy.DIT (E)-I (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3009/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

asked to Mehta Charity Trust ITA. No.3009/Mum./2016 show cause as to why the trust is not covered within the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(2)(g) and therefore the exemption under section 11 of the Act be not denied. In reply, assessee submitted

M/S Akme Harmony Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 993/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. D.D. Shamala, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 167BSection 234

only in the following cases:- M/s. AKME Harmony Apartment Owners Welfare Association, Bengaluru Page 10 of 12 1. Income for private religious purpose {Section 13(1)(a) of the Act} 2. Income for the benefit of particular religious community {Section 13(1)(b) of the Act} 3. Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

next year, as contemplated in the explanation to section 11(1). ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 10 Section 13(1)(d) provides that the income of any public trust will not be exempt u/s. 11 if it holds for any period during a previous year ... funds of the trust have not been invested or deposited for any part of the year in consonance with the provisions of section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate of tax. During the year, from the records

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

upholding the action of Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)-2(2)(„the learned Assessing Officer‟) in concluding that the assessee has violated provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”). The Appellant prays that the conclusion reached by the learned ... learned Assessing Officer, holding the Appellant violative of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act, be declared as erroneous. 2 ITA. No. 3155 & 3081/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer

ACIT- 17 (3), Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

ITA 3153/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (dR)

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(d)

trust and claimed exemption u/s.11 of the I T Act which is denied by the AO due to violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust ... without appreciating the fact that the main purpose of the trust is defeated as there is violation to the provision of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act.” 9. In respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal of the revenue, the Ld. AR drew our attention

ACIT- 17 (3), Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

ITA 3152/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (dR)

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(d)