← 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)

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

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

ITA 268/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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 267/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

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

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6459/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 25

relatives held a substantial interest of 64.19% in HRG and, therefore, HRG was to be regarded as a person covered by section 13(3)(e) of the Act. The assessee objected that he did not explain how he considered Mr. Shekar Swamy and his relatives as persons covered under sections ... 13(3)(a) to 13(3)(d). Assessing Officer of the view that Mr. Shekar Swamy would be covered under section 13(3) since he is a director of HRG by removing the corporate veil (see page 8, last para; page 9, 6th para and page 13, 4th para after

Media Research Users Council, Mumbai vs. Addl DIT (E) RG 1, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7108/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 25

relatives held a substantial interest of 64.19% in HRG and, therefore, HRG was to be regarded as a person covered by section 13(3)(e) of the Act. The assessee objected that he did not explain how he considered Mr. Shekar Swamy and his relatives as persons covered under sections ... 13(3)(a) to 13(3)(d). Assessing Officer of the view that Mr. Shekar Swamy would be covered under section 13(3) since he is a director of HRG by removing the corporate veil (see page 8, last para; page 9, 6th para and page 13, 4th para after

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2161/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2116/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1316/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1314/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

concern in which any person referred to in sub-section (3) has a substantial interest.” Further, as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, „person‟, inter-alia, includes the author of the trust or the founder of the institution. Thus, in order to invoke the provisions

ITO (E)-1(3), Mumbai vs. Hinduja Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7502/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

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

public, relief to animals, birds in distress, etc. . 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO held that there was violation of section 13(3) r-w.s. 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Act and hence the Hinduja Foundation assessee is not eligible for exemption under ... pattern of M/s. Hinduja Healthcare Pvt. Ltd clearly indicate that the lease transaction is a transaction between related concerns as per provision of section 13(3) of the IT Act. Shri. Ashok Premanand Hinduja is the Managing Hinduja Foundation Trustee of the assessee trust. And Smt. Harsha Hinduja is also

All India Liquid Bulk Impoerters & Exporters Asssociation, Mumbai vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1604/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

DCIT (Ex) - 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Bohra Merchants Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Income Tax (Ex) -1(1) Bohra Merchants’ Association Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 56/62, Chandabai Bldg., Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, 2Nd Floor, Mangaldas Road, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan No. Aaatl0024D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR
Section 1Section 11Section 13(3)Section 36ASection 36A(3)Section 69A

invoking the provisions 13(1)(c) & 13(2) for the reason that the assessee itself admitted that the persons referred to in section 13(3) have availed of the facility of interest-free loans only merely on the basis of Remand Report, without appreciating the actual facts brought ... respect of direct benefits to the trustees for the reason that assessee submitted that the persons referred to in Section 13 (3) of the Act are also eligible to the loan as those are also members of the society and no distinction can be made amongst them. Assessee also submitted

Shahshib Minority Welfare and Educational Society, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(E), Bangalore

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

ITA 2875/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gangadhar Saastry, ITPFor Respondent: Sri.Ananda H., Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)

trustee cum secretary engaged in to personal transactions and the same has not brought to the report of the Chartered Accountant under section 13(3). (v) As required in proviso 12A of the IT Act, the assessee fails to file the audit report. Hence exemption u/s 11 need

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 63/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (OSD)-DR
Section 1Section 11Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha `, Bagalkote

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (OSD)-DR
Section 1Section 11Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri Basaweshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 61/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (OSD)-DR
Section 1Section 11Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Sri Basaveshwar Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangha, Bagalkote

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 60/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (OSD)-DR
Section 1Section 11Section 154

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA