← All Phrases

“Section 13(2)(d)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(2)(d)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(2)(d) is CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (363 ITR 230), cited in 117 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(2)(d)

CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions
363 ITR 230 · 2014 · High Court
117
citing judgments

For a charitable trust, a violation of Section 13(1)(d) does not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11 on its total income. Instead, only income derived from investments or deposits made in violation of Section 11(5) or income diverted under Section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) is taxable.

CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society
330 ITR 21 · 2011 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Charitable institutions are entitled to claim depreciation on assets even when the cost of acquisition has already been treated as an application of income for exemption purposes, as this does not constitute a double deduction.

1. Father Mullers Charitable Institutions 363 IT 230 (Kar.) 2. DIT(E) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust
249 ITR 533 · 2001 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Income of a trust that is taxable at the maximum marginal rate should be taxed accordingly, while other income is eligible for exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. D. Ananda Basappa
309 ITR 329 · 2009 · High Court
97
citing judgments

For exemption under Section 54, the expression 'a residential house' allows for investment in multiple residential units that form one functional unit, as 'a' does not imply a singular number. The amendment to Section 54, effective from April 1, 2015, is prospective.

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse
259 ITR 280 · 2003 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) v. DGIT (Exemptions)
358 ITR 91 · 2013 · High Court
80
citing judgments

An institution carrying out charitable objects, such as education or advancement of general public utility, does not lose its Section 11 exemption merely by collecting fees for activities like campus placements or educational guidance, as this does not constitute carrying on a business.

GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption)
360 ITR 138 · 2014 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Charging fees, even when having regard to the economic status of beneficiaries, is permissible for the sustenance of charitable activities, provided it is necessary for operation and running expenses and does not amount to carrying on trade or commerce. This applies even after the introduction of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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.

Judgments citing Section 13(2)(d)

Sandip Foundation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6031/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Arun Khodpiashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsandip Foundation 2Nd Floor, Koteshwar Plaza, J.N. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400080 ............... Appellant Pan: Abefs2855C

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(2)(d)Section 154Section 234ASection 250

exemption under section 11, without duly appreciating the facts and evidences placed on record. IV. Addition of Rs. 27,96,600 /- made under section 13(2)(d) of the Act is unjustified 4. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O has erred ... facts in adding a sum of Rs. 27,96,600/- to the income of the assessee by invoking section 13(2)(d) of the Act, holding that the said payment does not qualify for exemption under section 11, without duly appreciating the facts and evidences placed on record

Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust Regd, Mohali vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1136/CHANDI/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(ii)Section 13(3)

such the imprest account was not application of college funds by the Chairman within the meaning of section 13(1)(c) or section 13(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The learned AO has erred in law and facts in treating the imprest account of Chairman of the society

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)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S Aryans Educational and Charitable Trust, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 821/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 M/S Aryans Educational & Vs. The Dcit, Circle-1 Charitable Trust, बनाम (Exemptions), # 2129, Phase-10, Chandigarh Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan, Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 13(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 68

such the imprest account was not application of college funds by the Chairman within the meaning of section 13(1)(c) or section 13(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The learned AO has erred in law and facts in treating the imprest account of Chairman of the society

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)

dealt with by the co-ordinate bench. We thus, by following the aforesaid decision in assessee’s own case, hold that provisions of section 13(2)(d) are not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, ground taken by the Revenue on this issue is dismissed. 8. In the result