← 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)

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for these two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1328/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Praveena S., CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: S/Shri Satish Mody, Advocate & Kunjan Gandhi, CA
Section 13(3)

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; 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in observing that there was no diversion of funds by the assessee trust

Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for these two assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Praveena S., CIT (DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: S/Shri Satish Mody, Advocate & Kunjan Gandhi, CA
Section 13(3)

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; 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in observing that there was no diversion of funds by the assessee trust

Maa Bharti Jan Kalyan Trust, Kota vs. ITO Ward Exemption, Udaipur

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 480 & 481/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 487/JODH/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 May 2025

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(3)

ground that the assessee violated the provisions of section 12AB(4) and section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of the Act. There is no ambiguity and the Ld.CIT(E) also satisfied about the genuineness of the activity as per the provisions of section 12AB

ITO (E), Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Sahyog Jan Kalyan Samiti, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6245/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

## IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI "G" BENCH: NEW DELHI # BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH

Sumitra Devi Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chittorgarh

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 604/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesumitra Devi Agarwal Vs Addl / Jcit (A)-9 / 609, Bhavani Chambers, New Ito Wd.1, Chittor Sanjevani Hospital, Kedarmal Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Fort Road, Road, Malad (East), Mumbai- Chittorgarh-312 001, Rajasthan 400 097 Pan : Aenpa5934L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Phophalia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dhan, Addl.CIT (Sr.D.R.)
Section 115BSection 13(3)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

Sinhagad Technical Education Society, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

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

ITA 419/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoresinhagad Technical Education Society Pcit (Central), Pune Smt. Khilare Marg, Off Karve Road, Vs. Pune – 411004 Pan: Aabts9900Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Miss Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Miss Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132

fees which is against public policy and income of the trust has been applied for the benefit of the persons referred to in section 13(3) of the IT Act which cannot be covered within the meaning of charitable activities. Since we have quashed the order of the Ld. PCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3936/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

empowers the assessee to prevent any person from undertaking any development within the Metropolitan Region without the previous permission of the assessee. Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the assessee to grant or refuse such permission. Section 14 holds the State Government to be the appellate authority for deciding

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

empowers the assessee to prevent any person from undertaking any development within the Metropolitan Region without the previous permission of the assessee. ● Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the assessee to grant or refuse such permission. ● Section 14 holds the State Government to be the appellate authority for deciding

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

empowers the assessee to prevent any person from undertaking any development within the Metropolitan Region without the previous permission of the assessee. ● Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the assessee to grant or refuse such permission. ● Section 14 holds the State Government to be the appellate authority for deciding

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax(Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Mumbai

ITA 3791/MUM/2023[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 11Section 126Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)Section 3

empowers the assessee to prevent any person from undertaking any development within the Metropolitan Region without the previous permission of the assessee. • Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the assessee to grant or refuse such permission. • Section 14 holds the State Government to be the appellate authority for deciding

DCIT(Exemption), Circle-1(1), Delhi vs. Karmanya Education Foundation, Delhi

ITA 3479/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (Exemption), Vs Karmanya Education Foundation, Circle-1(1), Y-89, Ground Floor, Delhi. Hauz Khas, Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aaccc6567F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. Advocate; Mrs. Mansha Anand, Advocate; Shri Aditya Rathore, Advocate; Sh Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Adv;& Shri Sohum Dua, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-40/10496/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Dcit, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT- DR
Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

these payments do not reflect genuine transactions but rather a means to transfer/divert application income within related entities which is clear violation of Section 13(3) of the Act. 4. O n the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Bandra Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2703/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 56

13(3) of the Act are not applicable in the present case. He submitted that LIHS did not fall within the ambit of Section 13(3) as no direct individual/personal benefits are or can be received by the LIHS being a charitable trust. The Ld.AR relied on the decision ... reported in (2024) 161 taxmann.com 290 (Bombay). He submitted that, the effect of application of income for the benefits of persons specified under section 13(3) is a denial of benefit of section 11 to such income/funds mis-utilised and not addition of notional income 10.5 On the contrary

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

imply that the income was not utilized for the objectives of the trust but rather it was used for a related party under Section 13(3) of the Act. 7. In respect of entries reflected as ‘Fee Refunded’ or ‘Fee not Received’, the nature and genuineness of ‘Fee Refund ... utilised for the purpose of or objects of the trust. Thus, there is no benefit received by any of the trustees mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee stating that it is a prima facie requirement of demonstrating that

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

imply that the income was not utilized for the objectives of the trust but rather it was used for a related party under section 13(3) of the Act. 7. In respect of entries reflected as ‘Fee Refunded’ or ‘Fee not Received’, the nature and genuineness of ‘Fee Refund ... utilised for the purpose of or objects of the trust. Thus, there is no benefit received by any of the trustees mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee stating that it is a prima facie requirement of demonstrating that

DCIT, C-1 (Exemptions), Chandigarh vs. The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

proved that income of the society has been used to provide benefit "directly or indirectly" to any person referred to in section 13(3) i.e. specified persons ignoring the detailed findings given by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order? ii. Whether on the (acts and in the circumstances ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the payment to the specified persons Smt. Kalpana Thakur (Prop. Global Education Consultants) under section 13(3) as reasonable and justified by noting that the MOU can be equally valid even if done on an unregistered document? iii) Whether

Icon Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 159/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2025-26
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

trustee is a director) and travel expenses reflecting a trustee's name, amounted to violation of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3), thereby disqualifying the trust from registration. The appellant submits that this reasoning is flawed and inconsistent with the scope and object of registration proceedings under ... Section 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and observing as “Thus, combined reading of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(3) of the Act clearly states that if a trust carries out any transaction directly or indirectly for the benefit of the specified persons mentioned

Icon Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 158/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2025-26
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

trustee is a director) and travel expenses reflecting a trustee's name, amounted to violation of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3), thereby disqualifying the trust from registration. The appellant submits that this reasoning is flawed and inconsistent with the scope and object of registration proceedings under ... Section 11 and 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and observing as “Thus, combined reading of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(3) of the Act clearly states that if a trust carries out any transaction directly or indirectly for the benefit of the specified persons mentioned

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5004/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 12ASection 142(1)

given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncement, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of applying the provisions of Section 13(3) on account of deposits paid to trustee for use of premises and thereby withdrawing the benefit under section 11. Such withdrawal of benefit under Section ... respectively. According to the Assessing officer, those two persons being in the category of specified persons as provided in section 13(3) of the Act part of income has been applied for the benefit of specified persons, therefore, the assessee a violated provisions of Sec. 13

Anthayya Education Foundation Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption 1-(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5001/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 142(1)

given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncement, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of applying the provisions of Section 13(3) on account of deposits paid to trustee for use of premises and thereby withdrawing the benefit Anthayya Education Foundation Trust under section 11. Such withdrawal ... respectively. According to the Assessing officer, those two persons being in the category of specified persons as provided in section 13(3) of the Act , part of income has been applied for the benefit of specified persons, therefore, the assessee a violated provisions of Sec. 13

Income Tax Officer, Tirunelveli vs. Hemla Trust, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 138/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

used to pick up the teachers of the school and never utilized by the trustee or by any other prohibited persons mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act. It was also stated that the entire maintenance and fuel charges were borne by the said school and the assessee trust ... held that the purchase of Tata Venture vehicle in the name of Shri V. Jayendran (being a specified person referred to in section 13(3)(cc) of the Act) by using funds of the assessee trust has benefited the trustee (Shri V. Jayendran) and hence, there is a violation committed