“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)

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000

Section 143(3)

upheld, the assessee will be liable to tax, in respect of the same, as „fees for technical services‟ under section 13(3)(b) of the Indo UK tax treaty. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea that these revenues are in the nature of the business profits, and as the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999

Section 143(3)

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

each other. The AO despite these facts available on record has not conducted verifications with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of the Act.” The Learned CIT(E) also held that Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act is applicable in the instant ... been held that the payment made one trust to another trust as donation does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act. 8 Jeevan Deep Trust We noticed that the assessee has submitted above said contentions before the AO in the assessment proceedings

M/S Akme Harmony Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 993/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. D.D. Shamala, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 167BSection 234

benefit of particular religious community {Section 13(1)(b) of the Act} 3. Income for the benefit of persons specified in section 13(3) & 13(1) of the Act. 4. Funds not invested in accordance with the provisions of section 11(5) & 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. Anonymous

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

contributed more than INR 50,000/- to the Assessee-Trust and therefore, Tata Sons Ltd. was an interested party in terms of Section 13(3)(b) of the Act. The relevant extract of the assessment order reads as under: ITA. No. 3155 & 3081/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “5. By investing ... funds of the trust are invested or continue to remain invested in any concern in which interested person (as mentioned in section 13(3)) of the trust has substantial interest. The assessee trust was founded by Shri J.R.D.Tata. Shri Ratan N. Tata was the chairman of Tata Group from

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

noted in that order is very crucial and the assessee has been collecting unaccounted capitation fees by person coming under the ambit of section 13(3) of the Act and there is violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, he relied on the earlier order

Factiva Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6455/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, D.R

Section 13(3)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee was taxable as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) read with section 13(3)(a) of India-UK DTAA as the payment is for the use of copyright in literary work; use of information concerning commercial, scientific knowledge, experience

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 676/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं. 675/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 676/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2016-17) Centre For Study Of Social Change, F-Block, Plot No.6, T.P.S.Road, 12, Opp. Government Colony, Building No.326, Bandra(E) Mumbai -400 051 Pan: Aaatc-2555L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Sathe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Jacinta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta

Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)(b)Section 263

that AIILSG has made donation of Rs.18.75 lacs to the assessee. AIILSG falls under the category of persons specified in Section 13(3)(b) of the Act therefore the transaction is hit by the provisions of Sec.13(2)(b) of the Act. In reply to the notice the assessee explained

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 675/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta

Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)(b)Section 263

Audit Bureau of Circulations, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6393/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 11Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

1 ITA No. 6393/Mum/2016 & ITA Nos.2040 to 2043/Mum/2019 AYs. 2009-10 to 2014-15 M/s Audit Bureau of Circulations Vs

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 56/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

benefit been derived by individuals by diverting the income of the trust. She qualifies to be called a ‘manager’ of the trust under section 13(3) of the Act. Evidence reveals that the trust has lent money to Smt. Dharani. The amount of money that has been advanced is Rs.35

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 55/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 54/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 53/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 52/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 51/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S Venkatesha Education Society, Bangalore

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 50/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Venkatesha Education, Bengaluru

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 455/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 270/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Arvind Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 31 (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 269/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jain DixitFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER