“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)

Parag Dave, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1) (Previously Circle-3(3)), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

12AA(3) of the Act. The funds which were not used for objects of the Trust that can be brought to tax under section 13(3) of the Act. A perusal of the scheme of Income Tax Act would that once the donation has been made the donee

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

cancellation of registration under section 12A of the Act is subjudice. (iii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. 8. The learned authorities below have erred in law as well ... also trustees in the case of M/s Keshraj Educational Trust and M/s Varunarjun Trust and she held that this constituted a violation of section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore, she upheld the decision of the AO to disallow Rs.20,00,00,000/- on account of donations

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

cancellation of registration under section 12A of the Act is subjudice. (iii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 8. The learned authorities below have erred ... also trustees in the case of M/s Keshraj Educational Trust and M/s Varunarjun Trust and she held that this constituted a violation of section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore, she upheld the decision of the AO to disallow Rs.20,00,00,000/- on account of donations

The Jewellers and Diamond Traders Association, Madras vs. CIT, Exemptions, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 12ASection 2(15)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

Dr Kondabolu Basavapunaiah & Dr Lakshmi Prasad Trust, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward), Guntur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 250

value of Rs.1,67,50,000/- of the property, and the Trustee is one of the Specified Persons as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter in short “Ld. AO"] vide order dated 27.12.2019 passed under section 143(3 ... Trust was sold at a lesser consideration to one of the Trustees, who is a Specified Person as per the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act. According to the assessee, the proposal for the sale of the land to one of the trustees was approved

Icg-Iisu Alumnae Association-Bandhan, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 923/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR (Thru:V.C.)

Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 254

page-9 of the reply confirms this fact. Further the contention of the assessee that members are not covered under section 13(3) is not acceptable, as the benefit from objects is restricted for the members and not for the general public, this fact also makes institution as private

Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 247 & 248/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2024-25 Alternative For India The Commissioner Of Development, Vs. Income Tax (Exemption), No. 1, Vgn Nagar, Chennai. Iyyappanthangal, Kattupakkam Post, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aaata-4184-H] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

trust. He further drew our attention to para 4.7 on page 14 and submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) has alleged violation of section 13(3) of the Act. The Ld.AR contended that the assessee may be given one more opportunity for filing of details sought

Alternative for India Development, Chennai vs. Commission of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri. K.Vishwa Padmanaban, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

Positive Yuva Network Association, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

Exemption) has erred in denying registration on the basis that trust is involved in benefit of interest person mentioned under section 13(3) and siphoning of funds which completely vague and baseless. The activities of the trust are solely for the charitable purpose hence denial of final registration on this ... Exemption) has further erred in denying approval on the basis that trust is involved in benefit of interest person mentioned under section 13(3) and siphoning of funds which completely vague and baseless. The activities of the trust are solely for the charitable purpose hence denial of approval on this

Positive Yuva Network Association, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1000/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 80G

Smt Ramanandi Anangpuria Charitable Trust, Tagore Public School, Palwal vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle 2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 239/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akul Agarwal, C.A (Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur, CIT, DR (Virtual Mode)

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 144Section 80G

interest disallowance, the CIT(A) held that the assessee had paid Rs.19,82,813/- to trustees and their relatives, which attracted section 13(3). By virtue of section 11 read with section 13, such payments could not be allowed as expenditure of the trust. The addition was therefore upheld. Regarding ... that no undue benefit had been passed to the related parties to attract the mischief of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The assessee argued that the payment of interest was a genuine expenditure incurred for raising funds, and merely because such interest

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jay Singh Shikshan Sansthan, Farrukhaad

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

ITA 3013/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 142(1)

Officer observed that the assessee had lent or continued to lent in the previous year to the following persons who were referred under section 13(3) of the Act i.e. specified as persons, namely, Dr. Sunita Yadav and Dr. Shailendra Yadav for a lent of Rs.7,40,000 and Rs.26 ... above observation, the Assessing Officer proceeded to rework the income of the assessee and found that assessee has contravened the provisions of section 13(3) and denied the benefit of section 11 to the assessee and he reworked the income of the assessee as under : Particulars Amount Amount Income from

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3318/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

13(2)(h) of the Act refer to the persons in sub section (3) to section 13. The persons referred to in section 13(3) are as under: “Section 13(3) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (3) The persons referred to in clause (c) of sub-section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are

ITA 3317/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234B

13(2)(h) of the Act refer to the persons in sub section (3) to section 13. The persons referred to in section 13(3) are as under: "Section 13(3) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (3) The persons referred to in clause (c) of sub-section