← All Phrases

“Section 13(2)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(2)(c)54 judgments

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. DUKHHARAN MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, RANCHI

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

ITA 261/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH-RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(E), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. K J FOUNDATION, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1742/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Kunjan Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 13Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

ITO(E)-1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. INDIAN RUGBY FOOTBAL UNION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethito(E)-1(3) Vs. Indian Rugby Football Union R. No. 6Th Floor, Mtnl 2Nd Floor, Nawab House, M K Road, Bldg, Cumballa Hill, Dr. G D Marine Lines, Deshmukh Marg, Pedder Mumbai-400002. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan/Gir No: Aaat11523Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA

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

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 ... persons specified 3,18,00,092/- u/s. 13(3)- [J] 4.4 Further, Since the assessee society provided undue benefit in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society

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

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 ... persons specified 3,18,00,092/- u/s. 13(3)- [J] 4.4 Further, Since the assessee society provided undue benefit in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society

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

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 ... persons specified 3,18,00,092/- u/s. 13(3)- [J] 4.4 Further, Since the assessee society provided undue benefit in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society

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

ITA 1973/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

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 ... persons specified 3,18,00,092/- u/s. 13(3)- [J] 4.4 Further, Since the assessee society provided undue benefit in terms of section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. SALIL MISHRA- CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

ITA 3378/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 186(7)Section 80G

assessee has also referred to the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act which is reproduced for reference: "Section 13(2)(c) clearly stipulates that a violation occurs only when amounts paid to related parties are in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services ... stated that the assessee Trust has taken a very conservative interpretation to its favor. In order to understand the provision of section 13(2)(c), the same is reproduced below: 13(2): Without prejudice to the generality of the (provisions of clause (c) and clause (d)] [Substituted

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, SALIL MISHRA, MUMBAI

ITA 3377/MUM/2025[2026-27]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2026-27

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 186(7)Section 80G

assessee has also referred to the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act which is reproduced for reference: "Section 13(2)(c) clearly stipulates that a violation occurs only when amounts paid to related parties are in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services ... stated that the assessee Trust has taken a very conservative interpretation to its favor. In order to understand the provision of section 13(2)(c), the same is reproduced below: 13(2): Without prejudice to the generality of the (provisions of clause (c) and clause (d)] [Substituted

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)

inference drawn by the Ld. Assessing Officer concerning conferment of benefits to specified persons is fallacious since as per the provisions of section 13(2)(c), in case of salary payment; if the disputed salary paid is commensurate with the industry standards and comparable/reasonable then there shall

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, 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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, 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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL

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)

violation under section 12AB(4) of the Act, only the excess portion can be disallowed as per section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2)(c) of the Act. 3. The Ld.DR, on the contrary argued and placed that during registration, the ITR copy of Mr. Shubham Vijay

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)

observed that in\nassessment\nyear 2017-18, payments\nmade to Global\nEducational Consultants have been disallowed. These\npayments were termed in contravention to Section 13(2)(c)\nread with Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, but, inspite\nof taking note of the activities of the assessee ... cannot be said\nITA No.52/CHD/2023\nΑ.Υ.2017-18\n23\nthat there is violation of section 13(1)(c)(i) & (ii) read with section 13(2)(c) &\n13(3)(c) of the Act. \"\nHon'ble Mumbai Bench in the case of The Cancer Aid Research Foundation\nByculla Municipal School Building

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

ITA 325/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

observed that, the appellant- society has made excessive and unreasonable payment to the above two companies for rendering services, which attracts section 13(2)(c) of the Act, where if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowances or otherwise during the previous year to any person referred ... paid for such services, then, same is considered as benefit to persons specified u/sec.13(3) of the Act. In other words, as per section 13(2)(c), if any amount is paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise 35 ITA.No.325/Hyd./2023 during the previous year to any person

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXMP), GHAZIABAD vs. PARDADA PARDADI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5149/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT- DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(cc)

Rs.6,22,62,017 by invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read Pardada Pardadi Educational Society [A.Y 2018-19] with Section 13(2)(c) by stating that the remuneration paid to Mrs. Renuka Gupta, a specified person, was unreasonable and excessive in the facts of the present ... Assessing Officer to deny the exemption u/s 11 of the Act by invoking provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(c) is incorrect. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has relied

NAUGHTYS PET SANCTUARY,KERALA vs. CIT( EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/COCH/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)

registration u/s 12AB of the Act. Further, as rightly contended by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, as per provisions contained in section 13(2)(c) of the Act, if any amount is actually paid by way of salary, allowance or otherwise during the previous year to any person referred ... paid to Trustees orBoard Members is very enabling and allows reasonableremuneration to Trustees or Board Members under section 13(1)(c)read with section 13(2)(c) of the Act.The Supreme Court in CIT Vs Kamala Town Trust [2005] 279 ITR89 (All) held that section 13 of the Act, carves

RAVINDRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), THANE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3863/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Shri Girish Agrawal, A.M. A.Y.2014-15 Ravindra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Income Tax Officer (Exemption), 2Nd Floor, Qureshi Mansion, S/8, Kartik Sadan, Veer Savarkar Road, Gopal Nagar, Dombivli (E), Gokhale Road, Thane. Naupada, Vs. Thane (W). (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan Aabtr 2696A Assessee By Shri V.G. Ginde , Advocate Revenue By Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing 07.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2025

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(2)(c)

unreasonable and excessive. Hence, such act on the part of the assessee violates the provisions of Section 13(1) (c) (ii) read with Section 13(2)(c) of the Act. He further observed that the assessee had given interest free loan to one of the trustees. It is also

RAVINDRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION , THANE

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

ITA 3511/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanravindra Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Ito Ward Exemption, Mandal, Thane 5/8 Kartik Sadan Saverkar Road, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Opp-Gopal Nagar, Dombivli, Quereshi Mansion, Gokhale Maharashtra – 421 201 Road, Naupada, Thane (West), Pan: Aabtr2696A Near Teen Hath Naka, Thane, Maharashtra – 400 602

Section 11(1)(a)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 143(2)Section 250

submitted by the appellant in support of the say of the appellant and incorrectly invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2)(c) and working out interest on interest free advances given to trustees 4,43,557/- Rs which may kindly be deleted in the interest ... assessee under section 11(1)(a) by Ravindra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal incorrectly invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(2)(c) without appreciating the facts and submissions made by the assessee. Ground No-2: On the facts and in circumstances of the case

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3