“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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. Navratan Vidha Mandir Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

Tribunal in favour of assessee. Third society though not registered u/s 12AA, but was charitable society with object of education. For application of section 13(3) read with section 13(2)(a) share in profit was required to be 20 percent but there was no such profit in society, thus ... violated. It was held that assessee society had merely given interest free loan to another society and Loan was neither investment nor deposit. Section 13(3) is not applicable in this case. Thus there was no violation of section 13 and Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Director of Income Tax (Exemp

Sunil J. Jagtap, Income Tax Officer(Exemptions)-1(2), Mumbai vs. Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3941/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

proposed addition of Rs. 2,52,00,000/-, assessee submitted that- (i) both the charitable trusts do not fall within the ambit of section 13(3) of the Act and thus, the addition proposed by invoking sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) were not tenable

Sunil J. Jagtap, Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)-1(2), Mumbai vs. Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3940/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

proposed addition of Rs. 2,52,00,000/-, assessee submitted that- (ij) both the charitable trusts do not fall within the ambit of section 13(3) of the Act and thus, the addition proposed by invoking sections 13(2) and 13(1)(c) were not tenable

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal vs. Indus Education and Research Institute, Raipur

ITA 177/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Sree Raghavendra Educational Society, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward 4, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 835/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 201Section 40

find that section 13(1)(c) applies when income or property of the trust is used to benefit persons referred to in Section 13(3). In the present case, it is not disputed that the loans were advanced in earlier years and were not extended during the relevant assessment year

Sree Raghavendra Educational Society, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 201Section 40

Park Trust, Tirupur vs. DCIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1809/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 250

daughter of founder Managing Trustee, Dr. P.V. Ravi and herself is a Trustee and therefore, she is a specified person as per Section 13(3)(cc) and (d). The A.O has found the salary excessive and therefore, held salary to the extent of Rs. 7,50,000/- appropriate and balance ... excessive and deemed to have been applied for the benefit of persons referred in Section 13(3)(c). The A.O has also disallowed interest of Rs. 1,40,95,279/- @ 12% of the sum advanced to M/s. Park ED Trust of Rs. 4,01,71,568/-, Park Hospital Ltd. Rs.7

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1743/MUM/2024[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

response to a question raised, the Departmental Representative could not even point out as to which specified person under section 13(3) needs to be probed or holding a substantial interest in the companies in which investments are made by the assessee. All that he has emphasized is that

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

The Trained Nurses Association of India, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Exemption-2(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1002/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 The Trained Nurses Vs. Dcit Association Of India New Delhi L-17, Floreence Nightingale Lane, Green Park, New Delhi-110016 Pan No.Aaatt2930J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate Ms. Mansi Jain,Ca Respondent By Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust, Godhra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Surat at -Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.138/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Shamlaji Aarogya Seva Trust The Pr.Cit (Central) बनाम/ Kanelav Road Surat At Vadodara Dhahod Road V/S. Godhra – 389 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04 /09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Surat [Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit"] Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Pcit Held That The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 16.11.2019, Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interests Of

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

income was applied for the benefit of specified persons. This fraudulent activity constitutes a direct benefit to specified persons, as defined under Section 13(3) of the Act. The AO’s failure to consider these facts and apply Section 13 of the Act makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial

Brahman Sabha Karveer, Maharashtra vs. CIT Exemption Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 795/PUN/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR

Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 41Section 80GSection 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions Circle, Chennai, Income Tax Department vs. The Indian Institute of Engineering Technology, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 679/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

sought to sustain the impugned order by contending that the core issue was as to whether Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3)(e) would stand attracted. 17. However, there are several factual aspects, which have been missed out by the Assessing Officer to be taken into consideration

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

Chairman and that he is having substantial interest in Tata Sons Ltd. (ii) Tata Sons Ltd. is an interested party in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Act as it has contributed more than Rs. 50,000/- to the assessee. (iii) The AO placed reliance in the case ... 13(2)(h) by holding that the assessee continue to hold the investments in a concern in which the person referred to in section 13(3) has substantial interest. The ld. AR further submitted though Mr.Ratan Tata during the year under consideration was one of the Trustees and he holds

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

Income Tax Officer (E)- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mmtis Educations and Research Trust, Andheri West

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2393/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mmtis Educations and Research Trust, Andheri West

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2386/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Education Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 2/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

salary/honorarium paid to 4. Trustees, under Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, read ITA-2,10,11 &12/CHD/2024 7 with Sections 13(3) and 164(2) thereof invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b), holding such payment to be unreasonable. For this, the AO held that ... 12/CHD/2024 9 case of double taxation, but, it was a case of unreasonable and undue benefit having been given to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. 5. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, relying on the Tribunal decision

Assisstant Commissoner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 12/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Exemption, Chandigarh vs. Heritage Educational Society, C/O Delhi Public School

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Department

ITA 11/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)