← All Phrases

“Section 13(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(2)241 judgments

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4779/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
For Respondent: \nShri Gaurav Jain, Adv
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

held that\nwhere funds of assessee trust were utilized for purchase of car in name of\nits trustee, there was violation of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3);\nhowever, denial of exemption under section 11 should be limited only to\namount which was diverted in violation ... section 13(2)(b). The Learned\nAR also placed reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in\nthe case of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta vs CIT reported in 178 ITD 338 (Mum\nTrib). The relevant operative portion of the said order of the Tribunal is\nreproduced below

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. EVERWIN EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KOLATHUR, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2811/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

benefit to the trustees and the properties were always intended for the trust's charitable purposes.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 13(1)(c)", "Section 13(2)(g)", "Section 11", "Section 12", "Section 143(3)", "Section 263"], "issues": "Whether the acquisition of properties in the names of trustees, followed by rectification

TULIPSTAR TOWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2336/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 13(2)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 272Section 272A(1)(d)

affairs of Rs 500 In regard to fee for form No INC-22 for change in Address. b) Form no INC-24 Under section 13(2) of Companies act 2013 and Rule 29(2) of the companies Rules 2014 in regard to the application for approval of central government

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/HYD/2012[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Feb 2026AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

No.138/Hyd/2012 Action For Welfare And Awakening In Rural Environment (AWARE) also violates the provision of Sec 13(1)( c )(u) read with section 13(2)) no Sce (3) (d) Thus in this assessment year on two occasions the provisions of Sec 13(1) Mit) road wit section 13(2

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5120/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13Section 13(2)(e)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

provisions of section 13 of the Act read with 'Explanation 3' attracts in this case. 7. By referring to the provisions of Section 13(2)(e) he came to the conclusion that, Shri Sanjeev Agarwal holds voting power of 14.18% through society 4 and 11.66% through Sh. Sanjeev Agarwal ... share holding controlled by them consists of 37.84% as under:- 12. With the above observation, he was of the view that provisions of Section 13(2)(e) of the Act are clearly applicable, the benefit of section 11 or section 12 is not allowable to the assessee. Accordingly, he proceeded

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging to the trust had been made available ... after considering the assessment orders and the submissions of the assessee, held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3) of the Act. He recorded a finding that Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. could not be regarded as a concern

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7608/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging to the trust had been made available ... after considering the assessment orders and the submissions of the assessee, held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3) of the Act. He recorded a finding that Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. could not be regarded as a concern

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

held that where funds of assessee-trust were utilized for purchase of car in name of its trustee, there was violation of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3); however, denial of exemption under section 11 should be limited only to the amount which was diverted in violation ... section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 17 27. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT and Another vs. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions reported in (2014) 363 ITR 230 (Kar), he submitted that Hon’ble High Court in the said decision

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 94/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 93/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 92/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(4), CHENNAI vs. D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 91/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3344/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3343/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

D R BALAKRISHNA RAJA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIR-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3342/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:3342 To 3344/Chny/2018 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2013-14 Shri. D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Acit, 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Vs. Central Circle -3(3), T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (()यथ'/Respondent) (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:91 To 94/Chny/2019 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2014-15 Dcit, Shri D. R. Balakrishna Raja, Central Circle -2(4), Vs. 9/16, Venkatesan Street, Chennai. T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. [Pan:Agwpd-2354-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. K.G.Raghunath, Advocate Department By : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई क5 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 घोषणा क5 तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri. K.G.Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 153ASection 56Section 68

denied on the ground that use of refrigerator by the managing trustee was violation of the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act. 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made on account of rejection of agricultural income amounting

SANDIP FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6031/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandip Foundation 2Nd Floor, Koteshwar Plaza, J.N. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Abefs2855C

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(2)(d)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

initio. Hence the same may be quashed. On Merits III. Addition of Rs. 11,96,93,441 /- made by invoking provisions of section 13(2)(c) of the Act is unjustified 3. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts ... adding a sum of Rs. 11,96,93,441/- to the income of the assessee by invoking section 13(2)(c) of the Act, holding that the said payment does not qualify for exemption under section 11, without duly appreciating the facts and evidences placed on record. IV. Addition

CATHOLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcatholic Education Society Vs Income Tax Department Cit 338, Bb, Michael Villa, New (Exemption) Hall Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, 400070 Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: (Aaatc5704H) Mumbai 400026 Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1075306167(1) Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) (Cit(E)) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice & Passing An 2

For Appellant: Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate and Shri Shashi Bekal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

observed that the following payments were made to the following persons. Please justify the reasonableness of these payments vis-à-vis provisions of section 13(2) of the Act and also prove these payments were not excessive. Sr.no Name of the person Amount Salary Rent 1 Mr. Moses Gomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

ITA 1992/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

held that the transaction with M/s. EESPL has to be at arm’s length and any undue benefit in terms of section 13(2) of the Act would automatically result in disentitlement of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4.1 Further, the AO noted that as per the terms ... respectively, it substantiates that transaction between the assessee society and M/s. EESPL is not at arm’s length in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) of the Act. 4.3 The AO relying on the decision of the Hyderabad ITAT in the case of M/s. NTR Memorial

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

ITA 1991/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

held that the transaction with M/s. EESPL has to be at arm’s length and any undue benefit in terms of section 13(2) of the Act would automatically result in disentitlement of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4.1 Further, the AO noted that as per the terms ... respectively, it substantiates that transaction between the assessee society and M/s. EESPL is not at arm’s length in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) of the Act. 4.3 The AO relying on the decision of the Hyderabad ITAT in the case of M/s. NTR Memorial

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1974/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

held that the transaction with M/s. EESPL has to be at arm’s length and any undue benefit in terms of section 13(2) of the Act would automatically result in disentitlement of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4.1 Further, the AO noted that as per the terms ... respectively, it substantiates that transaction between the assessee society and M/s. EESPL is not at arm’s length in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) of the Act. 4.3 The AO relying on the decision of the Hyderabad ITAT in the case of M/s. NTR Memorial

Showing 1–20 of 241 · Page 1 of 13

...