“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)

Takdah Lingding G P S K U S Limited, Takdah, Darjeeling vs. I.T.O., Ward - 3(3), Darjeeling

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumartakdah Lingding Gpskus Ltd, Vs Ito, Ward-3(3), Darjeeling 1, Takdah, Village-Takdah, Darjeeling, West Bengal-734222 Pan No. : Aadat 6301 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Promita Majumdar, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakrabrthy, Addl.Cit-Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Chennai, Dated 24.02.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Issue In The Present Appeal Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S.80P Of The Act. 3. Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee Is A Cooperative Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year On 05.10.2018 Declaring Nill Income & Claimed Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act To An Extent Of Rs.13,58,174/-. It Was The Submission That The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Was Issued Without Granting The Assessee Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80P Of The Act. Ld. Ar Further Submitted That The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return U/S.13(1) Of The Act For 2

For Appellant: Ms. Promita Majumdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakrabrthy, Addl.CIT-Sr.DR

Section 119Section 13(1)Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 850P

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

Sahara Welfare Foundation, Kolkata vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1492/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 1l

sports and games. The Ld. AO concluded that this act of giving benefit to the interested person attracts violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act and as the explanation of the Ld. AR was not found tenable, the benefits of exemption

Ram Niwas Modi Charitable Society, Jaipur vs. CIT-Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. JCIT

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

earlier years. Thus, these payments are nothing but siphoning off the income of the trust to the related persons. Thus, combined reading of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(3) of the Act clearly states that if a trust carries out any transaction directly or indirectly for the benefit ... Assessing Officer to indicate in assessment order that salarypaid by assessee-society to executive director was unreasonable, no violation of provision of section 13(1)(c) could be alleged and exemption couldnot be denied. 2.2 In the case of Asstt. CIT v. Idicula Trust Society [2012]21 taxmann.com 144/52

Shri Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Kanthibandh (Vaishnav) Vanik Gnati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 135/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, AR

Section 12ASection 14Section 253(5)

said caste, and the trust was therefore created for the benefit of a particular caste or community. Referring to the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act, the CIT(E) held that exemption under sections 11 and 12 cannot be allowed to any trust established after ... objects are confined to a particular religious community or caste. 3.6 The CIT(E) further examined the applicability of Explanation 2 to section 13(1) relied upon by the assessee, which provides that a trust or institution created for the benefit of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes, women

Shri Bhavnagar Dashashrimali Kanthibandh (Vaishnav) Vanik Gnati, Bhavnagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

ITA 134/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 14Section 253(5)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Jaya Educational Trust, Thiruvallur

ITA 237/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita. Nos.:234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025 & Co Nos.59, 60, 61 & 62/Chny/2025 (In Ita Nos. 234, 235, 236 & 237/Chny/2025) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Jaya Educational Trust, Income Tax, Vs. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Central Circle -1(2), Thiruninravur, Chennai. Thiruvallur – 602 024. [Pan:Aaatj-0369-D] (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) ($%थ#/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. Department By : Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Income-Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in observing that, if at all, there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the exemption could be denied, and maximum marginal rate of taxation could be applied only to that part of income which ... violation of section 13(1)(c). 6. For these grounds and any other ground including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of ld. CIT(A) may be set aside on this ground and that of the Assessing Officer be restored

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Jaya Educational Trust, Thiruvallur

ITA 236/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Jaya Educational Trust, Thiruvallur

ITA 235/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Jaya Educational Trust, Thiruvallur

ITA 234/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Scholars Education Trust of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 153(5)Section 2(41)

remains vacant and same is kept so for the exclusive use of the Assessee-trust, thereby, rendering the impugned finding alleging violation of Section 13(1) of the Act. 8. For that without prejudice, Ld. CIT(Exemptions) failed to grasp that any purported violations of Section 13(1 ... well as to ensure a proper residential accommodation. 45. Even if the case of the Revenue is qua violation in terms of Section 13(1) rws 13(3) of the Act, the same cannot form basis for withdrawal of exemption/ approval granted to a charitable trust/ society. Reliance in this

Khurshid Ahmad Dar, Jammu and Kashmir, India vs. ITO Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lalmeena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Blekhurshid Ahmad Dar Vs. Ito, Ward, Nully Poshwari Turkawangam, Udhampur Shopia, 192305, Jammu & Kashmir, India.Pin 192305. Pan No. Awmpd5664K Assessee By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Itp. Revenue By Mrs. Roshanta Kumari Meena, Cit Dr. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025. Date Of Pronouncement To. [1 .2025. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

copy thereof to the person therein named by the modes provided by section 282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides that unless and otherwise agreed, the dispatch of the electronic record occurs when it enters into

A-One Children Shikshan Sansthan, Kota, Rajasthan vs. CIT(Exemption)-Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1180/JPR/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Nov 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)Section 80G(5)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi Jain Sampraday Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 409/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.409/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Jain Sampraday Trust Vejalpur 380 015 V/S. 1, Paras Chambers, Opp. Sagar Hotel Nr. Ujala Circle, Sarkhej Ahmedabad – 382 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta 9012 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

Seva Trust v. CIT (Exemption) [2025] 173 taxmann.com 263 (Ahmedabad-Trib.), which held that for trusts created prior to 01.04.2021, the applicability of section 13(1)(b) is a matter for assessment and not for denying registration under section 12AB of the Act. 5.1. Accordingly, the counsel submitted that

Maya Kumari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 581/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

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)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to income of assessee under Section

A-One Children Shikshan Sansthan, Kota Rajasthan vs. CIT(Exemption)-Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1179/JPR/2025[2026-2027]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Nov 2025AY 2026-2027

Bench: Learned CIT(Exemption). One application was filed seeking its registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act").

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)Section 80G(5)(iii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks

Omkar Gadi Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 1021/DEL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2025-26 Omkar Gadi Foundation Vs Cit (Exemptions) 812-A, Shakuntla Building, 59, Nehru Place, Delhi Pan No. Aaato5616J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

that the said land belongs to the trust. In the absence of this, the said activity of the applicant violates the provisions of Section 13(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act,1961. b. From the perusal of the submission of the applicant, it is seen that the applicant

Omkar Gadi Foundation, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 1009/DEL/2025[2025-2026]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2025-2026

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2025-26 Omkar Gadi Foundation Vs. Cit (Exemption) 812, A Shakuntla, Building 59 Nehru Place Delhi-110019 Pan No.Aaato5616J (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

that the said land belongs to the Trust. In the absence of this, the said activity of the applicant violates the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b.) From the perusal of the submissions of the applicant, it is seen that the applicant

ACIT(E), Lucknow vs. M/S. Bhagwant Institute of Technology, Bijnor

ITA 219/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.219/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit (Exemptions) V. M/S. Bhagwant Institute Of Technology T. C. 46V, 5Th Floor, U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd., Vibhutikhhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226001. Avas Vikas Coloney, Bijnor-243001. Pan:Aaatb4195M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कि और से/Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal Cit(Dr) प्रत्यर्थी कि और से /Respondent By: Shri Vinod Kumar, Ca सुनवाई कि तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05 08 2025 घोषणा कि तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31 10 2025 आदेश / O R Der Per Kul Bharat.: This Appeal, By The Revenue, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Moradabad Dated 17.03.2020, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Benefit Of Section 11 Thereby Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,66,94,072/- In The Form Of Admission & Smart Card Fees, Exam Fee, Fee Receipts, Projects Fees, Uniform Fees, Internet Fees & Book Bank Receipts From The Students Beyond The Prescribed Amount Of Fees As Decided By The Govt. Authorities, Which Clearly Indicates That The Objects Of The Assessee Are Not Charitable; 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition/Disallowance Of Rs.37,55,277/- Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Substantiate It'S Claim With Documentary Evidences

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Agarwal CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, CA

Section 11Section 143(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण 'ए' न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष