← All Phrases

“Section 13(7)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(7)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(7) is MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. 381 7 (6 SCC 312), cited in 138 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(7)

MOHD. HANIF QUARESHI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS. 381 7
6 SCC 312 · 2012 · Reported
138
citing judgments

Where proceedings are initiated under Section 147, but the assessment is completed under Section 143(3), it is not a prerequisite that the assessee must have filed a return under Section 139.

Set Satellite Pte Ltd. v. CIT
307 ITR 205 · 2008 · High Court
96
citing judgments

If a Dependent Agency Permanent Establishment (DAPE) is remunerated at arm's length based on transfer pricing principles, no further profits can be attributed to the foreign enterprise. The principles of profit attribution under DTAA Article 7 are pari-materia to Section 9(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd.
313 ITR 231 · 2009 · High Court
55
citing judgments

This case establishes principles for distinguishing operating leases from finance leases and determining if leased equipment constitutes a Permanent Establishment (PE). It also clarifies that reassessment proceedings initiated on borrowed satisfaction without independent application of mind are invalid.

Bharti Airtel v. ITO (TDS)
67 Taxmann.com 223 · 2016 · High Court
53
citing judgments

Payment for human intervention to install or put equipment in place, distinct from human intervention involved in the transportation of calls between networks, does not constitute Fee for Technical Services (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act.

ACIT v. Clough Engineering Ltd.
130 ITD 137 · 2011 · ITAT
52
citing judgments

Interest income, such as on income-tax refunds or fixed deposits, derived by a foreign entity with a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India is taxable under DTAA if the debt-claim is effectively connected or attributable to the PE. For DTAA purposes, the terms 'attributable' and 'effectively connected' are considered to have the same meaning.

DIT v. Abbey Business Services Private Limited
122 Taxmann.com 174 · 2020 · High Court
46
citing judgments

Expenses incurred and reimbursed for seconded employees under a secondment agreement are not liable to tax deduction at source and do not constitute 'fees for technical services'. The secondment agreement itself forms an independent arrangement for securing services.

Galileo International Inc. v. DCIT
116 ITD 1 · 2009 · ITAT
41
citing judgments

Income is chargeable to tax in India only to the extent it is reasonably attributable to operations carried out in India, especially when the amounts paid to associated enterprises are at arm's length.

Diamond Services International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India
169 Taxmann 201 · 2008 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Performing the job of grading diamonds in a laboratory and issuing a grading certificate does not constitute the transfer of technical skill, knowledge, or commercial experience to the customer. Such activities do not amount to the provision of technical services under Section 9(1)(vi) or Article 12 of a DTAA.

Judgments citing Section 13(7)

Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Allahabad vs. ITO(Exemption), Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 181/ALLD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Shri Mahaveer Charitable Trust, Vs Income Tax Officer 46, Rajendra Nagar, Baluaghat, (Exemption), Allahabad Allahabad-211003, U.P. Pan: Aahts9123K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of 14.10.2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit, Nfac Dated 28.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Orders Of The Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Allahabad Dated 30.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 28.09.2024 Affirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,97,69,650/- On Account Of Donation Received & Rejection Of The Submissions Of The Appellant That Appeal Proceedings Pending Against The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.03.2016 Are Infructuous Is Absolutely Illegal & Against The Principles Of Law. 2. Because The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit V. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [27.07.2007] Had Observed That When An Order Of Assessment Is Reopened, The Previous Assessment Will Be Held To Be Set Aside & The Whole Proceedings Would Start Afresh & In The Case In Hands The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2016 Has Been Set-Aside By The Then Incumbent Ld. Cit(E); That Is To Say That No Assessment Existed On The Date When Order Dated 28.02.2018 Under Section 263 Of The Act Was Passed By The Then Incumbent Cit(E). 3. Because Section 263 Of The Act Grants Power To The Jurisdictional Commissioner To Direct For Revision Of Orders & Reads As Under (Relevant Statute Quoted):

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal & Sh. Ajit Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue because the assessment had not been completed in accordance with the provisions of section 13(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Furthermore, the ld. CIT (Exemption) had been of the opinion that the AO had failed to make proper enquiries