“Section 13(3)(e)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(3)(e)24 judgments

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)

13(3) of the Act is applicable is also based on incorrect application of the provisions of the Act The provision invoked is section 13(3)(e) of the Act i.e. Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal hold more than 20% shareholding in M/s Rinkpi Finance & Consultants (P) Ltd. Factually Sanjeev Aggarwal ... cannot be invoked. The authorities below have aggregates the shareholding held by three independent persons in their independent capacity to invoke section 13(3)(e) of the Act is satisfied which is a misconception. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has held as under: 6.1.5 I concur with

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7609/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

section 13(3) of the Act are not applicable. Further learned CIT(A) has given a finding with respect to section 13(3)(e) of the Act the said clause is not applicable here. Learned CIT(A) has given a finding that he has examined the shareholding pattern of ABHSL

DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7608/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 250

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

ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

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

ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

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

ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

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

ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

M.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR, ITO, CHENNAI vs. GREENPEACE ENVIRONMENT TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Section 13(3) To Charitable Trusts: The AO in his assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 31.03.2014 has invoked section 13(3)(cc) and section 13(3)(e) to disallow air travel expenses of Rs.91,37,031/- and per diem and subsistence of Rs.1,44,186/-. The sections have been invoked ... trust the question of its profit or any share of its income accruing to any person does not arise. Therefore, GPIS cannot attract section 13 (3) (e) also. 3.3 Common trustees/EC members in two charitable entities registered under section 12AA cannot attract section 13(3) at all. 3.4 The trustees/executive

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

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

clause (d) of section 13(3) of the Act cannot also be applied in the present case. 13. Insofar as the provisions of Section 13(3)(e) of the Act, we find that the same considers any concern, in which any person referred to any clause (a), clause (b), clause ... however, the same does not lead to the conclusion that Smt. Neerja Birla has a substantial interest in ABET. Hence, the provisions of section 13(3)(e) of the Act are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. Therefore, from a detailed analysis of various clauses

DCIT CIRCLE 1 (E) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ADARSH FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1216/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

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

Trustee of the Trust. By virtue of this fact, the SCPL is covered under the definition of the person as per provisions of Section 13(3)(e) read with explanation 1 & 3 of the Act. By entering into the referred agreement with SCPL, the eligibility conditions for claiming deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER , BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1304/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta, JCIT

Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 147

that there was violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and the company was a specified concern as per section 13(3)(e) of the Act? 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provisions of Sec.13

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed\nand Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1303/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)Section 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIBIKULAM MADURAI vs. D N PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, ARASARADI MADURAI TAMIL NADU

ITA 1302/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Section 1Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(e)

that there\nwas violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and the company was\na specified concern as per section 13(3)(e) of the Act?\n2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provisions\nof Sec.13 ... that there\nwas violation of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act and the company was\na specified concern as per section 13(3)(e) of the Act?\n2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by invoking provisions\nof Sec.13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, CHENNAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY, CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 679/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.679/Chny/2024 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner Of The Indian Institute Of Engineering Income Tax, Vs. Technology, Exemptions Circle, 363, Arcot Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 024. [Pan: Aaatt 2768C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1059500064(1), Dated 09.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2012-13 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 20.03.2015. :- 2 -: 2. There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing The Appeal By The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)

sought to sustain the impugned order by contending that the core issue was as to whether Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(3)(e) would stand attracted. 17. However, there are several factual aspects, which have been missed out by the Assessing Officer to be taken into consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 175/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147

these had no substantial interest. The Learned Assessing Officer has not brought on record any material to establish that the provisions of section 13(3)(e) were applicable in the case of the assessee trust. Therefore it is submitted that for the applicability of section 13(3)(e) the persons

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E)-2(1), MUMBAI, 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)

specifically provides that when the income of the trust is diverted during the previous year in favour of any concern as provided under section 13(3)(e) the assessee would not be entitled for exemption if the rent paid is unreasonable one. 8. The perusal of the lease deed reveals

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2