“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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 3160/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

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 3159/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

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 3158/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

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 3157/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

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 3155/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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

erred in upholding the AO's order inasmuch as he had alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding denial of exemption

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1222/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sir Ratan Tata Trust Dy. Cit(Exemption) – 2(1) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mtnl Tele Bulding, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Shri Aatul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

learned CIT(A) was not justified in approving the view of the Assessing officer that the exemption under section 11 was hit by section 13(2)(h) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) erred in approving

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1743/MUM/2024[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

such, covered by the proviso to Section 13(1)(d), It cannot be open to hold that the exemption will be forfeited by Section 13(2)(h). The CBDT, after a detailed examination of that aspect of the matter, has concluded that these shares were held as the corpus, which ... material facts remain the same as these were then, and there is no occasion to revisit those factual findings. The application of Section 13(2)(h), in such a situation, is wholly academic. The benefit given under proviso to Section 13(1)(d) cannot be taken away by invoking Section

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4156/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (ii) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(2)(h) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (iii) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) – AY 2018-19 (iv) The assessee ... also called on the assessee to show cause as to why the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2)(h) are not applicable in assessee's case. 4. The assessee made detailed submissions before the AO in this regard. However, the AO did not accept the submissions

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

ITA 4154/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 2(15)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -26(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. R D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3703/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Atui T. Suraiya, C.A and Shri T.P. Ostwal, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR

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

ordinate Bench's decision in the case of M/s Jamshetji Tata Trust vs. ACIT (ITA No. 7006/Mum/2013 ) with respect to the issue on section 13(2)(h) of the Income tax Act, 1961." 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a public charitable trust registered with ... Assessing Officer denied the exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the Act, by also holding that assessee had violated the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) by investing in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd., by observing u/s.13(2)(h), if any funds of the trust are invested or continue

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4153/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blesir Ratan Tata Trust V. Dcit (Exemption)-2(1) Bombay House, 24 Mtnl Tele Building, Cumballa Hills Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaats1013P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sukhsagar Syal, Assessee Represented By : Shri Atul T. Suraiya & Ms. Bhavika Jain Department Represented By : Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Denied the benefits of section 11 and 12 of the Act by alleging violations of section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2)(h) of the Act; b) Denied the benefits of section 11 of the Act to entire income ignoring the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2116/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

held by the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, vide order dated 26.03.2014 in ITA No. 7006/Mum/2013 for AY 2010-11 that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the IT Act are applicable on the holdings of the assessee in Tata Sons Ltd. This observation would clearly apply ... Pr.CIT under section 263 of the Act and the orders were quashed by this Tribunal. - **12.** Coming to applicability of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act we are of the considered view that the same are not applicable to the assessee, for the simple reason that person

Sir Dorabji Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2085/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of the Act. Further, the Assessee had also violated the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as the Assessee-Trust had invested funds in Tata Sons Limited - a company in which Mr. Ratan N. Tata ... 3081/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “5. By investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., Tata Chemicals Ltd., the assessee has also violated section 13(2)(h) of the Act. Section 13(2)(h) states that if any funds of the trust are invested or continue to remain invested

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered ... Chairman. Accordingly, the AO held that by investing in shares of Tata Sons Ltd., the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 5.3 In appeal, the CIT(A) vide

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2161/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250