“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 vs. Global Institute of Technology Society, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

property of the trust is used or applied during the year directly or indirectly for the benefit of any person mentioned in section 13(3) which in the case is none. The provisions of section 13(3) are reproduced here under: - Section 13(3) (3) The persons referred ... making the addition the Learned Assessing Officer has no where mentioned in the assessment order (relevant para 4) as how the provisions of section 13(3) are applicable. In fact while making the addition of Rs. 60,60,000/- on account of advance for purchase of land

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3292/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Mahek SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

itself indicates that there is an attempt to divert the income of the assessee trust in favour of the persons referred to in section 13(3) and is consequently hit by the provision of 13(2)(g) of the IT Act, 1961.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that ... assessee Trust has made the payment of Rs.2.75 Crore to M/s Vidya Education Pvt. Ltd. which is an excluded person under section 13(3) of the Act. The assessee was asked to justify the reasonableness of the said payment in term of provision of section 13(2) failing which

JCIT(OSD), C-1, (E), Chandigarh vs. The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala

ITA 874/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Against Assessment Order Dt. 30/03/2013 Which Was Passed By Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala Range, Patiala, Punjab Which Order Is Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao’S Order”.

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

section (3),in so far as such use or application relates to any period before the 1st day of June, 1970; Provisions of Section 13(3) are reproduced as under: (3) The persons referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) are the following, namely ... Paraminderjit Kaur Brara, Member of the AOP and Administrative Officer of the Society, are a specified persons in view of the provisions of section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as such the expenditure of Rs. 10,06,000/- debited by the assessee under the Head 'Conveyance Allowance

The Sikh Educational Society, Patiala vs. Addl. CIT, Range, Patiala

ITA 687/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Jyoti Vidyapeeth Trust, Jaipur

16. As a result, finding no merit in the appeal filed by the department, the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 707/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 12ASection 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 13(3)Section 250

Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. under the category 'application or use of income or property for the benefit of persons referred to in section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which constitutes 30.75% of the gross receipts of the assessee as pointed out by the AO. 3 ... 13(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 13(3) are not attracted in the instant case because during the F.Y.2016-17, no salary/allowance was paid by the trust to the person referred to in section 13

Madeit Innovation Foundation, Kancheepuram vs. CIT(Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 162/CHNY/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 162/Chny/2024 M/S.Madeit Innovation The Cit(Exemption), Foundation, Vs. Chennai. 3Rd Floor, New Academic Block, Iiitdm, Kancheepuram – 600 127. Pan: Aakcm 5065A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Murali, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Murali, CIT

Section 10ASection 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

part of the income of the Trust / Society on Profit Company enures, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any person specified under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 iv) An undertaking to the effect that it has complied with all the requirements of any other

Bal Bhavan School, Bhopal vs. DCIT Exemption, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed as mentioned above

ITA 321/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2014-15 Bal Bhavan School, Dcit (Exemption), 1, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaab3678G Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2024

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

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Iilm Education Trust, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (Exemptions Circle 2), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 227/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12A

erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant and lessee are separate and independent charitable entities, not covered under section 13(3) of the Act. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, interest is not leviable/ chargeable under section 234B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Catholic Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, to the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated the provision of section 13(3) of the Act by making the payment to persons specified u/s 13(3).” 3. The solitary grievance of the Revenue, in the present appeal

Centre for Development Communication Trust, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Antroli vs. Ward- Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Antroli, Income-Tax, C/O. Mahavir Kelavani Mandal, Bangalore Nadiad, Gujarat – 387366 Pan: Aactm 6322 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar: Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Cit(A)’) Dated 29.02.2024, In The Matter Of Intimation Issued U/S 143(1) Issued By Cpc, Bangalore On 01.03.2019. 2. Following Are The Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:_ “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Made In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Which Was Passed Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Being Heard To Your Appellant. In The Said Intimation Order, The Claim Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act Is Denied & A Demand Is Raised. Such Arbitrary Disallowance Of Exemption Is Prayed To Be Deleted. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Upheld The Disallowance Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act In The Intimation Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act Making An Addition Of Rs. 40,67,000/- On Account Of Income Chargeable U/S 12(2) Of The Mahavir Kelavani Mandal Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2016-17 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR

Section 11Section 12(2)Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

could be seen that there are no any amounts spent by the assessee trust for the benefit of persons referred to in section 13(3) of the act. Therefore, as contented by the counsel for the assessee, it is a mistake while filing the return of income to fill

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -26(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. R D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3703/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Atui T. Suraiya, C.A and Shri T.P. Ostwal, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)

funds of the trust are invested or continue to remain in invested in any concern in which interested person {as mentioned in section 13(3)} of the trust has, substantial interest then the trust cannot avail the exemption u/s 11 and 12. He 4 R D Tata Trust ... where it was held that being a Chairman in a company would not amount to holding substantial interest therein as per explanation to section 13(3). 3.8. Ld. Assessing Officer thus, completed the assessment at assessed total income of Rs.8,72,22,000/- by including dividend, interest on bonds

Shri Balaji Human Resources Development Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Balaji Human Vs. Ito, Resources Development Exemption Ward- Trust, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, 2(2) South Extn.-1, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003 Pan Aagts6912B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Amount of Rs. 1,01,47,600/- was paid to M/s. Fostiima Integrated Learning Resources Private Limited (FILR) an entity covered under section 13(3) of Income Tax Act for the scope of work undertaken by it by under the Memorandum of understanding dated 11.7.2011. The amount paid ... Learned Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses of appellant trust on the solitary basis that FILR was an entity covered under section 13(3) of Income Tax Act and thus the appellant by availing services from it had violated conditions stipulated under section 13(2)(g) of Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Jaya Educational Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1552/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1552/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. The Dcit, Jaya Educational Trust, Chennai. No.8, Krishnapuram, Ii Main Road, Thiruninravur, Thiruvallur-602 024. [Pan:Aaatj 0369 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(cc)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(cc)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

during the year under consideration, the income of the trust has been directly or indirectly allowed for the benefit of persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act. The AO, further observed that as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, if any part ... held that said loans are clearly in the nature of direct / indirect benefit of Trust income / property to persons referred to in section 13(3) of the Act. The ld. AO further observed that although the assessee claims to have advanced loans and advances to consultants of the Trust

DCIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Indian Grameen Services, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 104/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 25

ignoring the fact that the assessee had charged inadequate rent from the specified person within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Act which is a violation of section 13(2)(b) of the Act.” 3. Brief facts relating to this issue are that the assessee filed a return ... Bhartiya Samriddhi Finance Ltd (BSFL) and M/s Bhartiya Samriddhi Investment & Consulting Service (BASIC), organizations who are persons specified within the meaning of section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short], which fact was noted in the Audit Report. 5. The assessee was asked to explain

Society for Human Transformtion & Research, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4417/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

Balance Sheet it was noticed that loan/advance of Rs. 18,03,595/- had been given to within the meaning of section 13(3). It was also noted that the assessee had not charge any interest on loans/advance given. Since interest free loan/advance had been given to specified person, a show ... assessee, in order to pass benefit to its related party, ie., Divine Real Build Private Limited, who is a specified person under section 13(3) deliberately advanced Rs. 97,10,000/- for a plot of land which was agricultural land worth Rs. 6, 72,500/-. It was also noted that

Society for Human Transformtion & Research, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 4416/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reported that there was no 'application' or use of income or property for the benefit of persons referred to in section 13(3)'. During the assessment proceedings as well, the assessee was specifically asked vide question No. 16 of Questionnaire dated 24.08.2015 to submit "Details of any amount paid during ... from assessment. The assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts in respect to payment to persons specified under section 13(3) for the year under consideration. It is also pertinent to mention that the Assessing Officer didn't ask for any justification/reasonableness of above payment. In fact

Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2085/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148