← 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)

Shree Mahyavanshi Samaj Bombay Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT Exemption, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4920/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhrishree Mahyavanshi Samaj Vs. Cit Exemption Bombay Trust Pratishita Bhavan, New 91E, Madhav Bhuvan, Marine Lines, 21/22, N M Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakpb0134E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad- CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 13(1)(b)Section 80G

application. 3. The Learned CIT(Exemption) Mumbai erred in stating the order of rejection dated 24-6-2025 that the assessee had violated section 13(1)(b) without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable to assessee trust as it was for the benefit of schedule castes, backward classes ... Trust has neither offered any comment on delay in filing application in Form 10AB nor did it offer any comments on violation of section 13(1)(b) of the Act and violation as per clause (d) of explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act owing to the activities favouring

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 3364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

considering the reply of assessee noted that pursuant to the IRDAI Act, Insurance Act was amended with retrospective effect. The assessing officer referred section 13(1) of IRDAI Act and recorded that as per second proviso in section 13(1), the abstract is prepared by actuary in accordance with regulation

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 3363/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

considering the reply of assessee noted that pursuant to the IRDAI Act, Insurance Act was amended with retrospective effect. The assessing officer referred section 13(1) of IRDAI Act and recorded that as per second proviso in section 13(1), the abstract is prepared by actuary in accordance with regulation

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

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 69А

Amigos Prasasth Path Social Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1501/KOL/2025[---]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1500 & 1501/Kol/2025 Amigos Prasasth Path Social Welfare Society.……….……….……….……Appellant 1 Ram Krishna Bagchi Lane, Beadon Street, Battala, Kol- 700006.. [Pan: Aajta7599P] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 28.06.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Separate Applications Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Sections 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From The Final Registration U/S 12A Of The Act Which Is Compulsory For Getting Subsequent Registration U/S 80G Of The Act Which Are Interconnected In Both The Appeals & Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. Ita No.1500/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts.

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

because a few ancillary clauses may incidentally benefit members or enable participation in government schemes. It was further held that the invocation of section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(b) is premature at the registration stage and cannot be used as a ground to reject registration in the absence

Amigos Prasasth Path Social Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. CIT (Exemption), Kolkata

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

ITA 1500/KOL/2025[----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.1500 & 1501/Kol/2025 Amigos Prasasth Path Social Welfare Society.……….……….……….……Appellant 1 Ram Krishna Bagchi Lane, Beadon Street, Battala, Kol- 700006.. [Pan: Aajta7599P] Vs. Cit (Exemption), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Both Dated 28.06.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(E)’] Rejecting The Separate Applications Filed In Form 10Ab For Final Approval As Per The Provisions Of Sections 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arise From The Final Registration U/S 12A Of The Act Which Is Compulsory For Getting Subsequent Registration U/S 80G Of The Act Which Are Interconnected In Both The Appeals & Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. Ita No.1500/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts.

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

because a few ancillary clauses may incidentally benefit members or enable participation in government schemes. It was further held that the invocation of section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(b) is premature at the registration stage and cannot be used as a ground to reject registration in the absence

M/S. Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

benefit of the trust, the repayment of the loan was made out of the trust funds, thus it violates the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. CIT(E) held that as it is not shown that the fund is used for the benefit ... never transferred to the trust and therefore this transaction was for the personal benefit of the trustee, hence it violates the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. The ld. CIT(E) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

Anandabava Seva Sanstha Gaushala Trust Jamnagar, Jamnagar vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 31/RJT/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2024-25) (Hybrid Hearing) Anandbava Seva Sanstha Gaushala Trust, The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Gopal Bhuvan No, Anandbava Chakalo, Tax (E), Jamnagar 361001 Ahmedabad 380015 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaata2817K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. (DR)
Section 2(15)Section 80(5)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

both charitable and religious were not exclusively meant for a particular religious community, then it would not fall under the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act and it was further held that where the assessee was charitable and religious trust, which did not benefit any specific religious ... community and hence, it could not be held that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be the Act. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under: - Anandabava Seva Sanstha Gaushala Trust attracted to the assessee trust and therefore, it would

Thavam Research Foundation, Pudukkottai vs. CIT, Exemption, Chennai

ITA 1159/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1159/Chny/2025

Section 12A(1)(ac)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Masina Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. Salil Mishra- CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

ITA 3378/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 186(7)Section 80G

same is in violation 7 ITA No.3377 & 3378/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2026-27 Masina Hospital Trust of the section 11 or 12 as per section 13(1)(c) r.w. section 13(3). The Ld. CIT(E) thus rejected the 80G approval. 3. The assessee preferred appeal against the rejection ... under: “6. In its submission made on 26.03.2025, at point no. II(F), the assessee has also referred to the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act which is reproduced for reference: "Section 13(2)(c) clearly stipulates that a violation occurs only when amounts paid to related

Masina Hospital Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT-Exemption, Salil Mishra, Mumbai

ITA 3377/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 186(7)Section 80G

same is in violation 7 ITA No.3377 & 3378/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2026-27 Masina Hospital Trust of the section 11 or 12 as per section 13(1)(c) r.w. section 13(3). The Ld. CIT(E) thus rejected the 80G approval. 3. The assessee preferred appeal against the rejection ... under: “6. In its submission made on 26.03.2025, at point no. II(F), the assessee has also referred to the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act which is reproduced for reference: "Section 13(2)(c) clearly stipulates that a violation occurs only when amounts paid to related

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 491/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessment proceedings, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13 by conferring undue benefit to ‘specified persons’ as per section 13(1) and, therefore, passed the assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 treating it as a mutual concern. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 48/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessment proceedings, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13 by conferring undue benefit to ‘specified persons’ as per section 13(1) and, therefore, passed the assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 treating it as a mutual concern. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 47/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessment proceedings, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13 by conferring undue benefit to ‘specified persons’ as per section 13(1) and, therefore, passed the assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 treating it as a mutual concern. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 46/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

assessment proceedings, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13 by conferring undue benefit to ‘specified persons’ as per section 13(1) and, therefore, passed the assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 treating it as a mutual concern. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Haji Pir Mohmad Yusuf Waqf, Surat vs. CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1326/SRT/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1326/Srt/2024 (Hybrid Hearing) Haji Pir Mohmad Yusuf Waqf Commissioner Of Income-Tax बनाम/ Chowk Bazar, Surat- 395 003 (Exemption), Ahmedabad-380 015 Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacth 6551 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/10/2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

alleviation of Muslim community. He submitted that Section 11 does not apply to the case of the appellant, which is clearly spelt in Section 13(1)(b) of the Act. He, therefore, argued that the order 3 Haji Pir Mohmad Yusuf Waqf of Ld.CIT(E) is as per the provisions

Shree Jain Shewatamber Sansthan, Aradhna Bhawan vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward-I Jaipur

ITA 340/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

conclusion that the assessee society was found not eligible to claim benefit u/s 11 of the Act, in view of provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, while denying benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee society, the Assessing Officer passed

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4728/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyatata Education Trust, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatt 9835A

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 154

concerned, the AO did not allow such exemption stating that the assessee had violated the conditions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. Accordingly, he completed the assessment without allowing assessee’s claim of exemption

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3442/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee appeal despite the fact that there is violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act because of the investment by the Trust in prohibited mode of investment that it would lead?" 2. Whether, 1 ... that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bkc Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3441/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing the assessee appeal despite the fact that there is violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act because of the investment by the Trust in prohibited mode of investment that it would lead?" 2. Whether, 1 ... that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse