← All Phrases

“Section 13(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(3)413 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(3) is Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence (P) Ltd. v. CIT (432 ITR 471), cited in 914 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(3)

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. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

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.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

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.

Judgments citing Section 13(3)

S.S. Jain Sabha Golf Link, Ludhiana vs. CIT Exemptions, Jalandhar

ITA 482/ASR/2024[24-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Micro Finance Industry Network, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 5879/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

Further, that no part of the income of the assessee trust ensures directly or indirectly for the benefit of a person specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. 3. The assessee claims to be a premier institution network coordinating with the Reserve Bank of India and assisting them

Micro Finance Industry Network, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

ITA 5878/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

Further, that no part of the income of the assessee trust ensures directly or indirectly for the benefit of a person specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. 3. The assessee claims to be a premier institution network coordinating with the Reserve Bank of India and assisting them

Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

premise that the aforesaid transactions directly or indirectly resulted in extension of benefit to certain trustees or related parties within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Act, thereby allegedly attracting the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. On the basis of such alleged violation ... conditions only impose a restriction on the Assessee Society not to make any distribution of surplus or assets to the specified persons under section 13(3) of the Act in the event of dissolution of the Assessee Society and not otherwise, meaning thereby - during the continuation of the activities

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward-Surat, Surat vs. Abhyuththan Gram Vikas Mandal, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 902/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

strictly prohibited and shall lead to the loss of tax exemptions u/s 11 and 12, with income taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate. Section 13(3) prohibits directing income / property to specified persons, including trustees, founders, or managers. Funds used for the benefit of a trustee are to be taxed

Abhyuththan Gram Vikas Mandal, Surat vs. CIT Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue, both are dismissed

ITA 838/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250

strictly prohibited and shall lead to the loss of tax exemptions u/s 11 and 12, with income taxed at the Maximum Marginal Rate. Section 13(3) prohibits directing income / property to specified persons, including trustees, founders, or managers. Funds used for the benefit of a trustee are to be taxed

Jan Kalyan Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act by applying the provisions of section 13(2)(e) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act 2.1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that once the appellant was duly registered u/s 12AA ... trust or institutions is during the previous year used or applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person referred to in section 13(3) of the Act. Further, Section 13(2) of the Act provides without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of clause (c) of 13

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

trust and their relatives were substantially interested in the said company. It was therefore treated as a related concern within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Act. 6. Before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted that ... execution of the lease. It was further submitted that Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. could not be regarded as a concern covered under section 13(3) of the Act, as the trustees of the assessee trust did not hold substantial interest in the said company within the meaning

DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7608/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

trust and their relatives were substantially interested in the said company. It was therefore treated as a related concern within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Act. 6. Before the Assessing Officer as well as before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee submitted that ... execution of the lease. It was further submitted that Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. could not be regarded as a concern covered under section 13(3) of the Act, as the trustees of the assessee trust did not hold substantial interest in the said company within the meaning

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

Officer has failed to conduct proper inquiry and verification regarding the substantial payments made by the assessee trust to specified persons as per section 13(3) of the Act. The failure to conduct such an inquiry has resulted in an erroneous assessment order. Relying on various decisions he held that ... where the Assessing Officer has again asked the assessee to provide the details of payments made to the specified persons as referred in section 13(3) of the Act. 17. Referring to the reply given by the assessee dated 08.12.2021, copy of which is placed at pages

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

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Kolhapur vs. The New Miraj Education Society, Miraj, Dist. Sangli

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

DCIT CC 8( 2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the assessment order dated 25

ITA 4351/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 254Section 80G

percent of CO-220/Mum/2025 Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre its gross receipts on indigent and weaker section patients and no violation of section 13(3) was established. On the above factual findings, the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of exemption under section 11. 16. Aggrieved by the order

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)

applicability and genuineness of agreements and resolutions relied upon, and the actual flow of funds and benefit, if any, to persons specified under section 13(3). These aspects go to the root of the applicability of section 13(1)(c) and cannot be adjudicated in absence of a detailed factual ... M/s.Tamil Nadu Real Estates Ltd., consider the agreements, resolutions, flow of funds, market comparables, and benefit, if any, to persons specified under section 13(3), take into account the reassessment order for A.Y.2002-03, without treating it as conclusive, and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after granting adequate

Catholic Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcatholic Education Society Vs Income Tax Department Cit 338, Bb, Michael Villa, New (Exemption) Hall Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, 400070 Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: (Aaatc5704H) Mumbai 400026 Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1075306167(1) Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) (Cit(E)) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice & Passing An 2

For Appellant: Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate and Shri Shashi Bekal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

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

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

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

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)

memb of assessee's trust are related parties eciate that the memb of assessee's trust are related parties in terms of section 13(3) of the Act and the assessee is hit by in terms of section 13(3) of the Act and the assessee ... 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)(ii) of the Act which denies

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

vehemently submitted that it is a classic case of siphoned off the funds of the trust for the benefit of persons referred in section 13(3) of the Act thereby enriching the trustee/ relative of trustees and depriving the benefit to beneficiary. Lastly the ld. D.R submitted that

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

vehemently submitted that it is a classic case of siphoned off the funds of the trust for the benefit of persons referred in section 13(3) of the Act thereby enriching the trustee/ relative of trustees and depriving the benefit to beneficiary. Lastly the ld. D.R submitted that

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

vehemently submitted that it is a classic case of siphoned off the funds of the trust for the benefit of persons referred in section 13(3) of the Act thereby enriching the trustee/ relative of trustees and depriving the benefit to beneficiary. Lastly the ld. D.R submitted that