← 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)

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

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

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

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

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)

entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the payment to Rajasthan Housing Board is not in contravention of section 11(5) r/w section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the findings of the Id Pr CIT cannot be sustained and cannot be made a basis to hold that ... corroborative evidence is not worthy of making an addition. However, even otherwise there is no there is no violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(1)(d) of the Act, as the said provisions are attracted in relation to trustees of the trust. The aforesaid property

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

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

Shri Chintamani Parshwanath Shwetambar Murtipujak Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5038/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J. Kala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virbhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(3)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

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

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

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 829/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 3

benefit of exemption may not be disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) of the Act exists in AY 2017-18 under consideration. The assessee filed its reply to the said ... However, the above contentions of the assessee were not found to be acceptable by the Ld. AO. Relying on the second proviso to section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee by observing as under : “4.3 Reply of the assessee is duly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 827/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 3

benefit of exemption may not be disallowed and income may not be assessed as an AOP if violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(b) of the Act exists in AY 2017-18 under consideration. The assessee filed its reply to the said ... However, the above contentions of the assessee were not found to be acceptable by the Ld. AO. Relying on the second proviso to section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee by observing as under : “4.3 Reply of the assessee is duly

Clg Universal Foundation, Jodhpur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

ITA 280/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)

finding regarding the charitable objects or the identity of the trust. Therefore, rejection of registration merely on the ground of alleged violations under Section 13(1)(c) was wholly unjustified. The Ld. AR invited our attention to copy of rent agreement, details of amount spent on various activities and Audited ... that the assessee had not carried out genuine charitable activities and that the alleged transactions amounted to siphoning of funds in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB, the scope

Clg Universal Foundation, Jodhpur vs. CIT ( Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, ITAs 192 & 280/Jodh/2024 are allowed and ITA

ITA 227/JODH/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)Section 8Section 80G(5)

finding regarding the charitable objects or the identity of the trust. Therefore, rejection of registration merely on the ground of alleged violations under Section 13(1)(c) was wholly unjustified. The Ld. AR invited our attention to copy of rent agreement, details of amount spent on various activities and Audited ... that the assessee had not carried out genuine charitable activities and that the alleged transactions amounted to siphoning of funds in violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AB, the scope