← All Phrases

“Section 13(3)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(3)(b)17 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(3)(b) is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320), cited in 259 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(3)(b)

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO
361 ITR 575 · 2014 · High Court
156
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association
140 ITR 1 · 1983 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

An object beneficial to a section of the public, as distinguished from an individual or group of individuals, qualifies as an object of general public utility under Section 2(15) and hence a charitable purpose. This applies even if the benefits are restricted to a specific caste, community, or professional group.

DIT v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd.
414 ITR 1 · 2019 · High Court
82
citing judgments

Service tax paid to the Government of India is not 'on account of' the provision of services for mineral oil exploration and production, and thus does not form part of the aggregate taxable amount under Section 44BB(2)(a) and (b).

DCIT v. Welspun Corporation Ltd.
77 Taxmann.com 165 · 2017 · ITAT
69
citing judgments

Subscription fees received by a non-resident for information access do not constitute 'royalty' for the use of copyright under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case also elaborates on the scheme of taxability for non-residents under Section 5(2) of the Act, especially concerning income deemed to accrue or arise in India.

Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT
195 ITR 81 · 1992 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

Advice, such as that provided by a lawyer or a financial consultancy firm on loan modalities, constitutes 'technical service'. This interpretation is relevant in the context of fees for technical services, especially under tax treaties.

CIT v. Syed Ali Adil
352 ITR 418 · 2013 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 is available for the purchase of a residential property even if it comprises several independent units, as long as the property is of a residential nature.

Judgments citing Section 13(3)(b)

Holy Spirit Educational Society Convent of Holy Spirit, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 965/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(i)Section 144B(1)(iii)Section 147Section 148

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that "The Society of Servants of the Holy Spirit" is not a person contemplated in section 13(3)(b) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ... Servants of the Holy Spirit is not a contribution per se but was only a reimbursement of expenses and consequently the provisions of section 13(3)(b) of the Act are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income

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

substantial contributors, then it loses the benefit of section 11 and its charitable character as provisions of Section 13(1) (c) read with Section 13(3) (b) are clearly invoked? 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... Neerja Biral by remitting on to the Trustees a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards settlement of the trust, as per the AO, under section 13(3)(b) of the Act, she is considered to be a person who has made a substantial contribution to the trust. ITA No.5494

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)

Chairman and that he is having substantial interest in Tata Sons Ltd. (ii) Tata Sons Ltd. is an interested party in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Act as it has contributed more than Rs. 50,000/- to the assessee. (iii) The AO placed reliance in the case

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)

Chairman and that he is having substantial interest in Tata Sons Ltd. (ii) Tata Sons Ltd. is an interested party in terms of section 13(3)(b) of the Act as it has contributed more than Rs. 50,000/- to the assessee. (iii) The AO placed reliance in the case

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. The Theosophical Society, Chennai

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 624/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 624/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer The Theosophical Society, (Exemptions), V. 1, Adyar, Ward -4, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatt-0479-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य

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)

Assessee also challenged the addition made by the AO u/s 13(2)(h) by invoking the provisions of Section 13(3)(b). According to the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer had invoked section 13(2)(h) in the context of shares held in Tata Sons Ltd. by the trust and contribution ... case but the AO has invoked 13(2)(h) based on the fact that Tata Sons Ltd. is a person, referred to in section 13(3)(b) and the trust holds investment in Tata Sons Ltd. According to assessee, it is not in agreement with the provisions of section 13

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5025/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

upheld, the assessee will be liable to tax, in respect of the same, as „fees for technical services‟ under section 13(3)(b) of the Indo UK tax treaty. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea that these revenues are in the nature of the business profits, and as the assessee

DDIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Reuters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 5024/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999
Section 143(3)

upheld, the assessee will be liable to tax, in respect of the same, as „fees for technical services‟ under section 13(3)(b) of the Indo UK tax treaty. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea that these revenues are in the nature of the business profits, and as the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4997/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1999-2000
Section 143(3)

upheld, the assessee will be liable to tax, in respect of the same, as „fees for technical services‟ under section 13(3)(b) of the Indo UK tax treaty. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea that these revenues are in the nature of the business profits, and as the assessee

Refinitiv Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (I.T) RG. 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessing Officer are dismissed, and both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the limited terms indicated above

ITA 4996/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 1998-1999
Section 143(3)

upheld, the assessee will be liable to tax, in respect of the same, as „fees for technical services‟ under section 13(3)(b) of the Indo UK tax treaty. The Assessing Officer rejected the plea that these revenues are in the nature of the business profits, and as the assessee

Jeevan Deep Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

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

ITA 1439/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

each other. The AO despite these facts available on record has not conducted verifications with regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of the Act.” The Learned CIT(E) also held that Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act is applicable in the instant

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

contributed more than INR 50,000/- to the Assessee-Trust and therefore, Tata Sons Ltd. was an interested party in terms of Section 13(3)(b) of the Act. The relevant extract of the assessment order reads as under: ITA. No. 3155 & 3081/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “5. By investing ... where he was chairman. 6. In view of this, it can be observed that Tata Sons Ltd is interested party in terms of Section 13(3)(b) as it has contributed to assessee trust more than Rs. 50,000/-. There is no iota of doubt that this transaction

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 676/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं. 675/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 676/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2016-17) Centre For Study Of Social Change, F-Block, Plot No.6, T.P.S.Road, 12, Opp. Government Colony, Building No.326, Bandra(E) Mumbai -400 051 Pan: Aaatc-2555L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Sathe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Jacinta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta
Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)(b)Section 263

that AIILSG has made donation of Rs.18.75 lacs to the assessee. AIILSG falls under the category of persons specified in Section 13(3)(b) of the Act therefore the transaction is hit by the provisions of Sec.13(2)(b) of the Act. In reply to the notice the assessee explained

Centre for the Study of Social Change, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 675/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआअसं. 675/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16) आअसं. 676/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2016-17) Centre For Study Of Social Change, F-Block, Plot No.6, T.P.S.Road, 12, Opp. Government Colony, Building No.326, Bandra(E) Mumbai -400 051 Pan: Aaatc-2555L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Anil Sathe ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Jacinta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Ms. Jacinta
Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)(b)Section 263

that AIILSG has made donation of Rs.18.75 lacs to the assessee. AIILSG falls under the category of persons specified in Section 13(3)(b) of the Act therefore the transaction is hit by the provisions of Sec.13(2)(b) of the Act. In reply to the notice the assessee explained

Director of Income Tax vs. India Habitat Centre

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed as the Tribunal by way of the impugned judgment has

ITA - 1177 / 2008HC Delhi12 Oct 2011
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev RajpalFor Respondent: Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.P
Section 11Section 260

since space in the super-structure had been allotted to the organizations below market price, provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3)(b) were attracted and therefore, was not entitled to exemption under section 11; 2011:DHC:5248-DB ITA Nos. 226/2005, 228/2005, 229/2005 & 230/2005, 1175/2008

Director of Income Tax vs. India Habitat Centre

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed as the Tribunal by way of the impugned judgment has

ITA - 1288 / 2008HC Delhi12 Oct 2011
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev RajpalFor Respondent: Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.P
Section 11Section 260

since space in the super-structure had been allotted to the organizations below market price, provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3)(b) were attracted and therefore, was not entitled to exemption under section 11; 2011:DHC:5249-DB ITA Nos. 226/2005, 228/2005, 229/2005 & 230/2005, 1175/2008

Director of Incomet Ax vs. India Habitat Centre

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed as the Tribunal by way of the impugned judgment has

ITA - 1175 / 2008HC Delhi12 Oct 2011
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev RajpalFor Respondent: Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.P
Section 11Section 260

since space in the super-structure had been allotted to the organizations below market price, provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3)(b) were attracted and therefore, was not entitled to exemption under section 11; 2011:DHC:5250-DB ITA Nos. 226/2005, 228/2005, 229/2005 & 230/2005, 1175/2008