Which cases are most cited on Section 13(8)?

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110) — 398 citing judgments; ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (143 Taxmann.com 278) — 390 citing judgments; Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (121 ITR 1) — 328 citing judgments; Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) (131 Taxmann 386) — 188 citing judgments; India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption) (371 ITR 333) — 128 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 13(8)?

BharatTax indexes 217 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 13(8) (Section 13(8)).

← All Phrases

“Section 13(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(8)217 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(8) is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(8)

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.

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.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association

121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court

328

citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)

131 Taxmann 386 · 2003 · High Court

188

citing judgments

The Income Tax Act, 1961, does not permit the carry forward of excess expenditure of a charitable trust to be set off against future surpluses, as such trusts are governed by a self-contained code under Sections 11 to 13, not the head 'Profits and Gains of Business'. However, depreciation on fixed assets is allowable to a charitable institution registered under section 12A.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)

371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court

128

citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. ACIT

396 ITR 323 · 2017 · High Court

108

citing judgments

Development authorities can continue to be regarded as existing for a 'Charitable Purpose' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, even after the introduction of the proviso to that section. The contention that such authorities automatically lose their charitable status due to the proviso is incorrect.

CIT v. Gujarat Maritime Board

295 ITR 561 · 2007 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A statutory corporation undertaking activities that generate income qualifies as a charitable entity under Section 2(15) if its dominant object is general public utility and it is legally obligated to apply its income solely for that purpose, even if the activities appear to be in the nature of trade or business. Such an entity is entitled to registration under Section 12A and exemptions under Section 11.

Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology

5 SCC 111 · 2002 · Reported

citing judgments

The legal form or ostensible autonomy of an entity does not prevent it from being classified as 'State' or 'authority' under Article 12 if it functions as an instrumentality of the Government, thereby attracting constitutional accountability under Part III.

Judgments citing Section 13(8)

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 355/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso to section 2(15) and section 13(8) are inapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable organization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 4. Addition / Disallowance under section ... addition / disallowance under section 43B cannot be made in the process of computing the total income under section 11 to 13 including under section 13(8). 4.2 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Explanation 3 to section 11(1) only applies sections

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 354/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 43B

Holy Family School, Mumbai vs. ITO Exemption, 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 5902/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act in view of the provisions of section 13(8) of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee ... section 2(15) for the assessment year in question and is therefore not entitled to exemption u/s.11 in view of the provision of section 13(8) of the I.T. Act. 3.2 The further, the letting out for business purpose is not incidental to the main object of the trust

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Complex, Hapur Chungi vs. Kanpur Development Authority, Motijheel, Kanpur

ITA 4580/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in holding that the assessee authority is hit by the provisions of section 13(8) r.w.s. 2(15) of the Act and the assessee authority is not entitled for the benefit of exemption under section 11, 12 & 12A and assessee

Centre for E-Governance, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemption, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S Parthasarthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)

proviso, and therefore the assessee is not eligible for exemption under section 11 or section 12 of the Act. The AO further invoked section 13(8) of the Act, which provides that once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted, the exemption under sections ... merit, the assessee submitted that the activities performed by the society cannot be regarded as business activities within the meaning of section 13(8) read with section 2(15) of the Act. It was explained that the entire functioning of the society is purely on behalf of the State Government

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina

Section 11Section 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 513/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R

Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

commercial in nature with an intention to make profits; (b) The appellant is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) read with section 13(8) of the Act. 2. 4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, proviso to section 2(15) and section

Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bangalore

ITA 512/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 250

Society for Advancement of Village Economy, Gaya vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Patna

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

ITA 14/PAT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 250(6)Section 28

Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable to the appellant and further provisions of Section 13(8) were also not applicable. It be so held now by granting exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed. 5. FOR THAT

Federation of European Business in India, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2446/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

that the ICC was charging consideration in the form of sponsorships by invoking proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act read with Section 13(8) and thus denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act to that part of income of the assessee which is received in respect

Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi vs. ACIT, (Exemptions) Circle-1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2888/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj. CAFor Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 234BSection 40A(9)

section 2(15) and is hit by the proviso of section 2(15) of the Act; and c) That the provisions of section 13(8) are applicable to the facts of the Appellant. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding that the expenditure incurred by the Appellant

Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 203/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

held to be an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. By invoking the proviso to section 2(15) and section 13(8), the Assessing Officer denied the exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that the corpus donation

Dudhsagar Research and Dement Association, Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT, Cicle-1, Exemption, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 250

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 491/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt.Renu Jauhriआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 46, 47, 48 & 491/Mum/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16,2016-17 & 2018-19) Income Tax Officer V/S. The Chembur Exemptions 2(4), Gymkhana बनाम Mumbai 16Th Road Chembur, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Mumbai 40071 Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai 400026 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt4163F .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 01.04.2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 48/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 47/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

Income Tax Officer Exemptions 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are allowed for

ITA 46/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: 26.09.2025

Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption -1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 270A

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

Bench in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association vs DIT [2012] 19 ITR 520 (Ahd.) 2.5 Attention is invited towards the provision of section 13(8) introduced in the Finance Act, 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.2009. This makes its clear that allegation of commercial/business nature cannot be a reason for rejection

Improvement Trust, Rajpura vs. ITO Exemption, Chandigarh

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

ITA 419/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 419/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Improvement Trust, Ito, Exemption, Rotary Club Road, बनाम Chandigarh. Rajpura. 140401 Vs. Distt. Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaati4964R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Hukminder Shahi, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09-2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28-02-2024 Of Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A)- 1, Noida For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised & Relief Claimed /Prayer Made By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri. Hukminder Shahi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 240

entitled for the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to Section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act. 4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming