← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Suncity Infrastructures Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4831/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Lgf-10, Vasant Square Mall, Vs. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaics7928N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Pawan Garg, Ca Department By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 20.08.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2014-15/10115325 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144B Dated 29.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real State. The Return Of Income Of The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,93,54,930/- & The Same Was Assessee U/S 143(3) Of The Act Vide Order Dated 24.11.2017 Wherein The Income Declared Was Accepted By The Ao. Thereafter, Based On The Information That The Assessee Has Dcit Vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. Allotted Preference Shares To One Shri Tarun Agarwal, At 16546/- Per Which Were Not Commensurate With The Financials Of The Company & After Obtaining The Approval Form The Competent Authority Notice Was Issued U/S 148 Dated 31.03.2021 Which Was Served Upon The Assessee On 01.04.2021. Thereafter, Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Rs.11,00,00,000/- Was Made On Account Of Share Premium Treated As Unexplained U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

placing on record the exact time at which the concerned officer had put the email in the system so that the presumption under Section 13(1) of the Act could have been attracted 17. The result of the aforesaid discussion is, that the petition will have to be allowed ... been issued within the time frame as indicated by the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act R/w Section 13(1) of the Information Technology Act, we do not see any reason to do so. The request is declined. ….” DCIT vs. Suncity Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. When there

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

held that cancellation of registration u/s 12A cannot be done. However Hon'ble ITAT has not examined the violation of section 13(1)(c) therefore, denial of exemption u/s 11 is found to be justified by the AO. The appellant has relied upon the case of CIT Vis State Urban ... exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. Further, Section 13 has the title 'Section 11 not to apply in certain cases'. Section 13(1)(c) says that if any part of income or any property of the trust is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

held that cancellation of registration u/s 12A cannot be done. However Hon'ble ITAT has not examined the violation of section 13(1)(c) therefore, denial of exemption u/s 11 is found to be justified by the AO. The appellant has relied upon the case of CIT Vis State Urban ... exemption to the assessee u/s 11 of the Act. Further, Section 13 has the title 'Section 11 not to apply in certain cases’. Section 13(1)(c) says that if any part of income or any property of the trust is used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit

Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust Regd, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1136/CHANDI/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(ii)Section 13(3)

namely 2014-15 and 2015-16. Armed with these facts on their cumulative setting, AO was of the view that assessee has violated Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act. He taxed the surplus over the expenditure and observed ... held that there was no fault committed by the assessee while A.Y.2025-26 4 accepting the donations. Hence, it is not hit by Section 13(1)(c) as well as 13(1)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal has directed the AO to grant benefit of Section

Msb Educational Society, Kota, Rajasthan vs. CIT(E) Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, this last objection also no more stands on its legs

ITA 155/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarmsb Educational Society, Plot No. 1, Burhani Park, Ward No. 1, Ramnagar Nanta, Kota 324 008 Pan No. Aaqam 8644P ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Ankit Chokshi, CA, Ld. AR (thro. VC)For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 17

since the object and purpose of the trust was confined only to a particular religious community, the same would attract the provisions of section 13(1)(b) and, therefore, prayer made for registration of the trust was declined. The Tribunal after going through the objects of the assessee- trust came ... assessee was a public religious trust as the objects of the trust were wholly religious in nature and thus, the provisions of section 13(1)(b) which were otherwise applicable in case of charitable trust would not be applicable. The Tribunal therefore, held that the assessee was entitled to claim

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

prohibited person arose, the trust will lose exemption in respect of the entire income. Since the trust had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act on the entire surplus of the assessee amounting ... income which was exempt as per the provisions of section 11, only on account of the fact that there was perceived violation of section 13(1). However, in view of the fact that in fact there was no such violation, the ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in sustaining the disallowance

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

prohibited person arose, the trust will lose exemption in respect of the entire income. Since the trust had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, it was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act on the entire surplus of the assessee amounting ... income which was exempt as per the provisions of section 11, only on account of the fact that there was perceived violation of section 13(1). However, in view of the fact A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 that in fact there was no such violation

Dr Kondabolu Basavapunaiah & Dr Lakshmi Prasad Trust, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

failed to consider that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r-w.s. 13(2)(f) of the IT Act, and thus, the denial of the exemption U/s. 11 was unwarranted ... factually incorrect. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO finding that there was a violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(f) of the IT Act, thereby incorrectly treating the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP) and subjecting

Aditya Birla Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4474/MUM/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (virtually appear), Shri Yogesh Thar, ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

students and ur students from Marwari community without restricting the benefit exclusively to such community and therefore, it does not constitute violation of section 13(1)(b) of the Act. e. The activities of developmental programs, workshops, seminars, webinars etc. are also an extension of the main activity of 'education ... presume and allege that the activities of the trust are restricted are to particular religious community. A plain reading of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act which reads as under: - “13. (1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total

Advantage India, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT (Central)-II, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

case in invoking the provision of section 12AA(3) of the Act on the basis of his finding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) are applicable on the assessee. 4. Without prejudice to grounds above, order of cancellation of registration is a quasi-judicial order, having serious ... Central) on the basis of his finding that the provisions of section 11 and section 13(1)(c)(ii) are applicable on the assessee. The ld AR submitted that a onetime violation due to ignorance and that too for a very short duration cannot be a sole ground for cancellation

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1 Thane, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There are instances of suppression of receipts which has been admitted by the trustees of the appellant trust iv. There are violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the cash taken out from the trust was used by trustees for their personal purposes ... held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per “income and expenditure

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions), Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There are instances of suppression of receipts which has been admitted by the trustees of the appellant trust iv. There are violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the cash taken out from the trust was used by trustees for their personal purposes ... held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per “income and expenditure

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There are instances of suppression of receipts which has been admitted by the trustees of the appellant trust iv. There are violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the cash taken out from the trust was used by trustees for their personal purposes ... held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per “income and expenditure

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemption) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There are instances of suppression of receipts which has been admitted by the trustees of the appellant trust iv. There are violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the cash taken out from the trust was used by trustees for their personal purposes. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकार INCOME ... held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per "income and expenditure

Mumbra Shikhshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are

ITA 375/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There are instances of suppression of receipts which has been admitted by the trustees of the appellant trust iv. There are violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the cash taken out from the trust was used by trustees for their personal purposes. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकर INCOME ... held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per "income and expenditure

Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Thane vs. ITO (Exemptions) - Thane, Dy. CIT (Central Circle) - 1, Thane

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

There are instances of suppression of receipts which has been admitted by the trustees of the appellant trust iv. There are violations of section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the cash taken out from the trust was used by trustees for their personal purposes ... held that the trustees of the trust inflated the expenses and cash was withdrawn for their personal use. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act have also been violated. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 11,88,565/- on account of surplus as per “income and expenditure

Icg-Iisu Alumnae Association-Bandhan, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 923/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR (Thru:V.C.)
Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 254

following alleged reasons.  Assessee trust meant for the benefit of its members and not for public at large and violation of section 13(1)©& 12AA.  Business / commercial activities.  Non-genuineness of activities. The action of ld. CIT(E) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief ... assessee on following grounds:- 1. Assessee trust meant for the benefit of its members and not for public at large & violation of Section 13(1)©& 12AA. 4 ICG-IISU ALUMNAE ASSOCIATION – BANDHAN VS CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 2. Business / Commercial activities 3. Non-Genuineness of activities The relevant narration as made

Bps Shikshan Sansthan, Choudhary Charan Singh, Sikar vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur

ITA 486/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 250

Rounded off Rs. 2,52,80,660/- 3. In nut shell, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act were attracted, and, accordingly, he denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee and raised tax liability ... society; that from this advance, the society diverted the funds benefit and further that this investment was in violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 6. It may be mentioned here that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also denied to the assessee deduction

Bps Shikshan Sansthan, Choudhary Charan Singh, Sikar vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur

ITA 485/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 250

Rounded off Rs. 2,52,80,660/- 3. In nut shell, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act were attracted, and, accordingly, he denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee and raised tax liability ... society; that from this advance, the society diverted the funds benefit and further that this investment was in violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 6. It may be mentioned here that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also denied to the assessee deduction

Hatkeshwar Mahadev Trust, Mahisagar vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2025

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

appellant are restricted to benefit of a particular religious community or caste i.e., “Lunawada Nagar caste” even when the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Act will be applicable to the appellant. 3. In law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of appellant