← 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, Exemption Ward, Ranchi vs. Dukhharan Memorial Charitable Trust, Ranchi

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

ITA 261/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

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

Manorama Sinha respectively. The Assessing Officer held that the above payments were excessive and unreasonable, and accordingly invoked the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, thereby denying exemption under section 11 of the Act and making additions to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved ... income under section 11 on ground that assessee-trust paid salary to one of trustee and, thus, there was violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c), in view of fact that payment of salary was being made since inception of trust and it had not been disputed by revenue

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), New Delhi

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

ITA 3331/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

that no part of its income of the trust/assessee directly or indirectly shall be used for the benefit of any person specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Act and no part of the income or property of the trust was ever used or applied for the benefit ... persons specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as a matter of fact the assessee has furnished audited accounts before the Ld. CIT(E) which were not considered and overlooked while rejecting the registration

Swavalamban Avam Swabhimaan Foundation, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Delhi

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

ITA 3328/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 80G

that no part of its income of the trust/assessee directly or indirectly shall be used for the benefit of any person specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Act and no part of the income or property of the trust was ever used or applied for the benefit ... persons specified in section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that as a matter of fact the assessee has furnished audited accounts before the Ld. CIT(E) which were not considered and overlooked while rejecting the registration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. K J Foundation, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1742/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Kunjan Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

ADIT, Chennai vs. S A A Ispahani Trust, Chennai

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

ITA 2125/CHNY/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G. Seetharaman, FCAFor Respondent: 17.11.2025
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

order in the case of Kapurchand Srimal v.CIT Andhra Pradesh 131 ITR 451 and directed for further investigation on the violation of the Section 13(1)(c) by the assessee Trust, where the Tribunal has stated as below:- “It is well known that the appellate authority has the jurisdiction ... ITAT remitted the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to give a finding regarding the violation of provisions contained in section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant para is reproduced as follows; “5. We have heard both the counsels and perused the relevant records

ITO(E)-1(3), Mumbai vs. Indian Rugby Footbal Union, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethito(E)-1(3) Vs. Indian Rugby Football Union R. No. 6Th Floor, Mtnl 2Nd Floor, Nawab House, M K Road, Bldg, Cumballa Hill, Dr. G D Marine Lines, Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Mumbai-400002. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan/Gir No: Aaat11523Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

without appreciating that the increase in salary was excessive, unreasonable and without any basis, thereby violating the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) of the Act." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... relationship to the trustee, which clearly amounts to conferring undue benefit upon a specified person u/s 13(3), thereby attracting the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 3. "On facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

assessee is hit by in terms of section 13(3) of the Act and the assessee is hit by provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which denies provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act which denies provisions of section 13(1)(c ... constitute “charitable purpose” under section 2(15), and did not constitute “charitable purpose” under section 2(15), and that it was hit by section 13(1)(c). The AO accordingly assessed that it was hit by section 13(1)(c). The AO accordingly assessed that it was hit by section

Himanshu Kukreja, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 147/DDN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Himanshu Kukreja Vs Income Tax Officer Matta Garg & Co. Ca 15- Income Tax Office, 13-A, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Subhash Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Uttarakjhand Pan:Ahipk9462F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025

Section 13(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

correctly examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The AO has also not examined the violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the 1. T. Act which prohibits any trust/society from diverting its income directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-3, Bengaluru vs. Sarakki Educational Society, Bengaluru

ITA 1992/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also

Income Tax Officer, Exemptions, Ward-3, Bengaluru vs. Sarakki Education Society, Bengaluru

ITA 1991/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also

M/S. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(Exemtions), Bangalore

ITA 1974/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also

M/S. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3 (Exemptions), Bangalore

ITA 1973/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also

Sheth Chimanlal Govinddas Memorial Trust, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

Prabodh Artha Sanchay, a partnership firm where its trustee had a substantial interest. This investment is in direct violation of Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(2)(a). 13(2)(g), and 13(2)(h), as well as the prescribed modes of investment under Section 11(5). Therefore ... interest earned does not make the investment eligible. The observation of the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order that “neither section 13(1)(c) nor section 13(2)(h) are applicable ." are erroneous displaying incorrect application of law. Section 13(2)(h) is as under : (h) if any funds

Ct Educational Society, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

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

ITA 422/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144B

showing other business income ("COMMISSION INCOME FROM PROPERTY"), indicating a diversion of energy and making the salary payment unreasonable under Section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(3). iii. Disallowance of Loan Repayment: Repayment of loan amounting to Rs. 2,46,02,962/- was denied as an application of income because

Ct Educational Society, Jalandhar vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is Partly Allowed for

ITA 396/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CA(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

Para 7 and 8 of the AO's order) were commercial in nature, constituting a violation of Section 2(15) and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) and 13(3) of the Act. 3.2 The AO computed the total assessed income at Rs.10,92,96,818/-, making ... charitable activities and was not existing for profit, leading to the invocation of Section 2(15) and Section 11(1) read with Sections 13(1)(c), 13(2), and 13(3). 10. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld this denial, observing in Para 5.3 and 5.6 that the Assessee's failure

Unnat Bharat Social Welfare Society, Shakarpur vs. CIT (Exemption), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 4141/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

detail of income/ financials for last three years, copy of bank account, undertaking w.r.t. to 1st proviso to section 2(15), declaration w.r.t. Section 13(1)(c), details of FCRA etc., rejected the applications filed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the same the assessee has filed the instant appeals before

Unnat Bharat Social Welfare Society, Shakarpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

ITA 4140/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

detail of income/ financials for last three years, copy of bank account, undertaking w.r.t. to 1st proviso to section 2(15), declaration w.r.t. Section 13(1)(c), details of FCRA etc., rejected the applications filed by the assessee. Aggrieved against the same the assessee has filed the instant appeals before

DCIT, Exemption, Ghaziabad vs. Maharana Pratap Education Centre, Kanpur

In the result, this ground of

ITA 2840/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singhand Shribrajesh Kumar Singh

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

facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,23, 90,343/- in respect of depreciation on branding as the provision of section 13(1)(c) & 13(3) of I.T. Act are applicable. (5) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.29 ... respect of curriculum development charges as the provision of section 13(1)(c) & 13(3) of I.T. Act are applicable. (6) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred inlaw and facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,69,69,137/- in respect of disallowance was made on specific expenses

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