← All Phrases

“Section 13(2)(g)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(2)(g)21 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(2)(g) is Vanita Vishram Trust v. Chief Commissioner of Income (327 ITR 121), cited in 31 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(2)(g)

Vanita Vishram Trust v. Chief Commissioner of Income
327 ITR 121 · 2010 · High Court
31
citing judgments

An institution must be established solely for educational purposes and not for commercial activities to be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). Pursuing objects other than education, or having objects that enable commercial activities, disqualifies the institution from such exemption.

Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, (2011) 53 OTR (Del) 130. Also Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director
351 ITR 184 · 2013 · High Court
27
citing judgments

An excess of income over expenditure does not, in itself, mean that an educational institution exists for profit, rather than solely for educational purposes. The primary purpose test is key.

DIT (Exemption) v. Girdharilal Shewnarain Tantia Trust
199 ITR 215 · 1993 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The 'income' contemplated by Section 11 is the real income, not merely the assessed or assessable income, and income from property held under trust must be arrived at in a normal commercial manner. This implies that statutory deductions under Section 14 are not applicable when income from property held under trust is excluded.

180 Taxman 4 (Karnataka) and G.Chinnadurai v. Income-tax Officer, Income-tax Department Non-Corporate Ward 13(2), Chenn
74 Taxmann.com 227 · 2016 · High Court
10
citing judgments

The amendment to Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, allowing for exemption on multiple residential units, is applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards.

Judgments citing Section 13(2)(g)

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
For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ITO Exemption 2 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Vaibhav Medical and Education Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5494/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

For Appellant: S/Shri Ronal Doshi a/w Deep ChouhanFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 24

that such an interest-free loan to ABET is covered with the provisions of section 13(2)(a), section 13(2)(b) and section 13(2)(g) of the Act, as ABET is a person specified in section 13(3) of the Act. On the contrary, it is the plea

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

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

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

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

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Raath Vidyapeeth, Alwar vs. ITO (Exmp.), Ward-Alwar, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 338/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 251

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Jaipur Engineering College Jaipur Rajasthan Society, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 261/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 164(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3292/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Mahek SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. H. M. Bhatt
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

Further, the issue in AY 2010-11 may be relevant for the conditions of section 13(2) (c), however the provision of section 13(2)(g) are applicable in the year under consideration. Moreover, the principles of resjudicata are not applicable in the income tax proceedings.7. In our view ... denied when the income of the trust is diverted during the previous year in favour of any person referred in section13(3). Section 13(2) (g) specifically provides that when the income of the trust is diverted during the previous year in favour of any concern as provided under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, CIT-DR
Section 13Section 13(3)Section 250

company from there it is diverted in the form of remuneration of the benefit in terms of Section 13(2)(c) and Section 13(2)(g) of the Act. 5.2 Further, the A.O has observed that the transactions between EIPL and that appellant trust are tailor made with a motive ... denied on this ground. 5.7 The AO has also denied the exemption under section 11 of the Act by invoking the provision of section 13(2)(g) of the Act on account of treating the rent paid by the appellant trust to EIPL as unreasonable and excessive. Section 13(2

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Catholic Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Centre for Development Communication Trust, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Shri Balaji Human Resources Development Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Balaji Human Vs. Ito, Resources Development Exemption Ward- Trust, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, 2(2) South Extn.-1, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003 Pan Aagts6912B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

education and running “Fostima Business School”. New Delhi. Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of Rs. 1,01,47,600/- under section 13(2)(g) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Amount of Rs. 1,01,47,600/- was paid to M/s. Fostiima ... covered under section 13(3) of Income Tax Act and thus the appellant by availing services from it had violated conditions stipulated under section 13(2)(g) of Income Tax Act and had diverted its income during the year in favour of sister entity. 6. Learned Representative of assessee submitted

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 675/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

ITA 674/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI "C" BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 673/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI "C" BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3267/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil University, Mumbai vs. ACIT Income Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3266/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH, MUMBAI. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil University, Mumbai vs. ACIT Income Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3265/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale I.T.A

Mehta Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy.DIT (E)-I (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3009/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

No.3009/Mum./2016 show cause as to why the trust is not covered within the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(2)(g) and therefore the exemption under section 11 of the Act be not denied. In reply, assessee submitted that Drishti Advertising

M/S. Nitesh Estates Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1486/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Nitesh Estates The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Nitesh Time Square, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, #8, M.G. Road, Circle – 5 [1][2], Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcn9267C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28/03/2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-5, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2009-10 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Order Of Re-Assessment Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab- Initio For Want Of Requisite Jurisdiction Especially, The Mandatory Requirements To Assume Jurisdiction U/S 148 Of The Act Did Not Exist & Have Not Been Complied With & Consequently, The Re-Assessment Requires To Be Cancelled. 3. The Learned Cit[A] Ought To Have Appreciated That There Was No Fresh Material To Show That Income Had Escaped Assessment Especially When There Was A Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL