← All Phrases

“Section 13(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)445 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(c) is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), cited in 461 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)(c)

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.

DIT v. Infrasoft Ltd.
39 Taxmann.com 88 · 2013 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software, without the transfer of any rights in the underlying copyright itself, do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income-tax Act or tax treaties. Such payments are often treated as business income, taxable only if a permanent establishment exists.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT
381 ITR 117 · 2016 · High Court
220
citing judgments

The Bright Line Test (BLT) is not a recognized method under the Income-tax Act and Rules for benchmarking advertising, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses or for determining the existence of an international transaction or its Arm's Length Price. The Revenue must first establish the existence and price of an international transaction before seeking an ALP adjustment.

Motorola Inc. v. Dy. CIT
95 ITD 269 · 2005 · High Court
213
citing judgments

Revenue must demonstrate the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) of a foreign enterprise in India, including establishing that transactions underlying a Dependent Agent PE were not at arm's length. Income from the sale of goods is not taxable in India if title and risk in the goods pass outside India.

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 13(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer, Surat vs. Satyam Educational Trust, Silvasa

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed

ITA 166/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

recollection of their contribution for the school who had devotedly acted for setting case, could be treated as infringement of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3) of the Act and accordingly allowed such expenses. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed present ... incurring expenditure of Rs. 7,786/- on the celebration of chairperson’s birthday, which was clear infringement of the provision of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or modify grounds of appeal before the finalization of appeal.” 11. Brief

Geeta Vidya Mandir Samiti, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1973/DEL/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Chhabra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)

income of the Trust/ 3. Society/ Non Profit Company enures, directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that no part of the income or property of the Trust/Society/Company was ever used or applied ... benefit of any person specified in section' 13(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, duly signed by the Authorized Signatory. Please attach a ’No Objection Certificate1 from the owner 4. of the premises from which you are operating along with proof of his ownership. Please attach details

Worldwelfare Health Federation, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 350/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2023AY 2022-23

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 133(6)

such services there was substantial growth in trust and its activities, payments for such services could not be said in contravention of section 13(1)(c) and benefit u/s section 11 could not be denied to assessee. In the order passed by Ld. CIT (Exemption), he himself has admitted that

ACIT Central Circle-16, New Delhi vs. Saket Education Society, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 824/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

interest free long term deposit and thereby unreasonable benefit was passed on to the specified person in violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c); 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erredin ignoring the facts that the assessee has constructed ... dated 03.09.2012 as established by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order for AY 2014-15 and is therefore unreasonable in terms of section 13(1)(c). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that

Jt.CIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi vs. Saket Education Society, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 823/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

interest free long term deposit and thereby unreasonable benefit was passed on to the specified person in violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c); 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erredin ignoring the facts that the assessee has constructed ... dated 03.09.2012 as established by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order for AY 2014-15 and is therefore unreasonable in terms of section 13(1)(c). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that

Jt.CIT(OSD), Central Circle-16, New Delhi vs. Saket Education Society, New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 822/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

interest free long term deposit and thereby unreasonable benefit was passed on to the specified person in violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c); 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erredin ignoring the facts that the assessee has constructed ... dated 03.09.2012 as established by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order for AY 2014-15 and is therefore unreasonable in terms of section 13(1)(c). 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that

Bharat Charitable Hospital Society, Kottayam vs. CIT (Exemption), Kochi at Tvm, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is disposed of on the afore-said terms

ITA 649/COCH/2022[2017-20108]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Manomohan Das (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: K. Krishna K., AdvFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

view that the AO had gone wrong in making the addition for Rs. 29.91 lacs. Once section 13(1)(c), reproduced hereunder in its relevant part, is attracted, no exemption u/s. 11 could be allowed: Section 11 not to apply in certain cases 13. (1) Nothing contained in section

Sher-E- Kashmir Collage of Education ( Unit of ) Pir Panchal Education Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Jammu

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

ITA 190/ASR/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

each to Sh. Syeed Ahmed Bhukhari and Sh. Charanjit Singh, totalling of Rs. 52 lacs. The advance to the trustee is violation of section 13(1) (c)(ii) and section 13(d) (i) r.w.s. 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act. So, the exemption available u/s 11 is denied ... present case, the AO while rejecting the exemption claimed by the trust u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) has invoked the provisions of sections 13(1)(c), 13(2)(a), 13(2)(b), 13(2)(d) and 13(2)(g) of the Act. In this connection it is pertinent mention that section

Saffron Educational Trust, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

ITA 8815/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Ussaffron Educational Trust, Commissioner Of Income Tax 104-Chiranjiv Tower, (Exemption), 43, Nehru Place, Vs Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, New Delhi-110019 Civic Centre, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaets2830G Assessee Revenue

Section 10Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)

passed on 18.12.2017, the Income-tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward 2(1), New Delhi noted that the Appellant Trust had violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that the trustees of the Appellant were the directors of Greater Delhi

The ACIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Rishiraj Memorial Education and Welfare Society, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 336/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The ACIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Rishiraj Memorial Education and Welfare Society, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 335/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The DCIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Jai Narain Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 268/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The DCIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Jai Narain Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 267/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The DCIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Hai Hay Kshatriya Education Society, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 266/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The DCIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. Hai Hay Kshatriya Education Society, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 265/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The DCIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 264/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

The DCIT-2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the revenue are disposed of in the above terms as per section 158A of the Act

ITA 263/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 201

Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that the societies/ trusts/entities to whom loans/advances were given by the assessee did not attract the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a)/13(2)(h) of the IT Act and, hence the assessee was eligible for benefits contemplated

Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. ACIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6920/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that there was no violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while not considering the facts and material brought on record by the Assessing Officer for the period

Mmti'S Education & Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 451/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

granted to the appellant by invoking us. 11 of the Act granted to the appellant by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to provisions of section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to provisions of section 13(1 ... exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground of violation n the ground of violation of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(2)(c) of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(2)(c) of the Act in relation to payments in relation to payments made to specified

Mmtis Education and Research Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2974/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv &For Respondent: Mr. Manish Ajudiya
Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

granted to the appellant by invoking us. 11 of the Act granted to the appellant by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to provisions of section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to provisions of section 13(1 ... exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the ground of violation n the ground of violation of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(2)(c) of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(2)(c) of the Act in relation to payments in relation to payments made to specified