← 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)

Madhurika Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 641/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.641/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Madhurika Educational & Asst. Director Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, Vs. (Exemptions)-Iv, No.11, Millers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-34 Chennai-600010. [Pan: Aaatm8627M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Bearing Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059541811(1) Dated 10.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Herein After “Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Center[Nfac], Delhi, For The Assessment Years 2010- 11. Through The Aforesaid Appeal The Assesse Has Challenged Order U/S 250 Dated 10.01.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(C)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 13(3)(d)Section 164(3)Section 250

remaining grounds are centered around two major issues. The first issue being denial of exemption u/s 11 by invocation of provisions of section 13(3)(d) and section 13(3)(cc) of the Act and the second being taxation of the security deposit of Rs.70 lakhs invoking provisions of section ... first issue raised by the appellant through grounds of appeal No.2 to 6 denial of exemption u/s 11 by invocation of provisions of section 13(3)(d) and section 13(3)(cc) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assesse informed that the appellant is a Public charitable Trust

Income Tax Officer, Bibikulam Madurai vs. D N Public Charitable Trust, Arasaradi Madurai Tamil Nadu

ITA 1302/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1302 To 1304/Chny/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2016-17 & Cross-Objection Nos.1 To 3/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2016-17 The Ito (Exemptions Ward), Bibikulam, Madurai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S.D.N. Public Charitable 13, Theni Main Road, Arasaradi, Madurai-625 016. [Pan: Aaatd 9013 C] Trust, (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Dr. Samuel Pitta, Jcit : Mr. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 22.08.2024 : 09.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)

that there was violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and the company was a specified concern as per section 13(3)(e) of the Act? 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provisions of Sec.13 ... that there was violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and the company was a specified concern as per section 13(3)(e) of the Act? 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provisions of Sec.13

Jito Bhavnagar Chapter Foundation, Bhavnagar vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 102/AHD/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Oct 2024

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.102/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Jito Bhavnagar Chapter The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Ahmedabad V/S. 101, Gold Center, Opp. Dadasaheb Jain Derasar, Kalanala Bhavnagar - 364 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcj 2285 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 8

members, and thus not fully aligned with the broader public purpose required under Section 12A of the Act. The CIT (Exemption) referred to Section 13(3) of the Act, which prevents organizations serving the interests of particular persons, including members, from being granted charitable registration. The CIT(E) placed reliance ... registration afresh, focusing solely on the charitable nature of the assessee’s objects, without invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(3) of the Act at this stage. The CIT(E) shall provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing the order