← All Phrases

“Section 13(2)(h)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(2)(h)46 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(2)(h) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(2)(h)

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

DIT (Exemption) v. Jasubhai Foundation
374 ITR 315 · 2015 · High Court
45
citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim exemption for specific income streams under Section 10, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), independently of the provisions of Section 11. Income exempted under Section 10 is not restricted or overridden by Section 11 for trusts.

CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust
305 ITR 149 · 2008 · High Court
45
citing judgments

A loan advanced by a charitable trust to another charitable trust can be treated as an application of income for the purpose of availing exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.

JRD Tata Trust v. DCIT
122 Taxmann.com 275 · 2020 · ITAT
31
citing judgments

Shares held as corpus by a trust, which were a precondition for notification under Section 10(23C), cannot be deemed to forfeit exemption under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2)(h).

Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v. DIT(Exemption)
299 ITR 406 · 2008 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A trust is entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act if the notice of accumulation is furnished before the completion of assessment.

CIT v. JK Charitable Trust
196 ITR 31 · 1992 · High Court
19
citing judgments

For income applied by a donor trust to another charitable organization to be considered application of income by the donor trust, the recipient organization must advance the same cause as the donor trust. This is particularly relevant when there are common trustees.

National Engg. Co-ordination Committee v. Asst. CIT
43 ITD 612 · 1992 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Where income of a trust is applied by way of a loan to a related entity, the assessing officer must demonstrate that such application is not for the objects of the trust to deny exemption under section 11. The burden is on the AO to prove the violation of section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(h).

CIT v. Working Women's Forum\n
53 Taxmann.com 85 · 2015 · High Court
14
citing judgments

When an assessee violates conditions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h), leading to rejection of exemption claims under Section 10(34) and 10(35), the income must be taxed at the maximum marginal rate.

Judgments citing Section 13(2)(h)

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)

Tata Sons Ltd. Accordingly, the investment by the assessee trust in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is not affected by the vice of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. In the present case, the only basis for invoking the provisions of section 16 13(2)(h ... assessee trust at the time of investment, is nothing but conjectures/surmises which is not even supported by the statutory requirements of section 13(2)(h) read with Explanation 3 to section 13 of the Act. 20. Respectfully following the above decision and as per the above discussions Assessing Officer

Sheth Chimanlal Govinddas Memorial Trust, Pune vs. CIT(Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
Section 11Section 12ASection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

does not make the investment eligible. The observation of the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order that “neither section 13(1)(c) nor section 13(2)(h) are applicable ." are erroneous displaying incorrect application of law. Section 13(2)(h) is as under : (h) if any funds of the trust ... Funds were invested in Prabodh Artha Sanchaya, and Prabodh Artha Sanchaya is a related party as certified by the Auditor. In these facts Section 13(2)(h) was applicable in the case of the Assessee. Thus, the Assessing Officer has failed to apply provisions of Section 13

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4852/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissiioner of Income Tax Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4727/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4496/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 26(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4419/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exeption) -Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4283/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... assessee has also violated the 4 ITA Nos.4282,4283,4156,4496,4727, 4835,4852,4419,4873/MUM/24 Tata Education Trust conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4282/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4156/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar & Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... further held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd. the assessee has also violated the conditions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as Shri Ratan Tata being one of the trustees had invested funds in a concern where he was Chairman. Based on such reasoning

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Varunarjun Educational Trust, there was a violation of section 13(3), but this opinion had been arrived at by an erroneous interpretation of section 13(2)(h), because the other trusts could not be said to be concerns, in which the trustees had a substantial interest. It was submitted that ... that the donations had been made to trusts in which the trustees of the assessee trust had substantial interest. Thus, it fell into section 13(2)(h) and was a violation of section 13(1)(c). In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in disallowing Rs.20

Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bareilly

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Varunarjun Educational Trust, there was a violation of section 13(3), but this opinion had been arrived at by an erroneous interpretation of section 13(2)(h), because the other trusts could not be said to be concerns, in which the trustees had a substantial interest. It was submitted that ... that the donations had been made to trusts in which the trustees of the assessee trust had substantial interest. Thus, it fell into section 13(2)(h) and was a violation of section 13(1)(c). In the circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in disallowing

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3318/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are

ITA 3317/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234B

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3316/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3313/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are

ITA 3312/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

Sheila Gopal Foundation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption Circle 2, Mumbai

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3161/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could