← All Phrases

“Section 13(1)(d)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(1)(d)(ii)3 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(d)(ii) is GSI India v. DGIT (Exemption) (360 ITR 138), cited in 51 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)(d)(ii)

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.

Deputy Director of Income Tax v. All India Football Federation
62 Taxmann.com 362 · 2015 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The proviso to section 2(15) should not be invoked to deny exemption to a sports organization if its activities are not predominantly in the nature of trade, commerce, or business.

Canara Bank Golden Jubilee Staff Welfare Fund v. DCIT
308 ITR 202 · 2009 · High Court
17
citing judgments

The income of a society for mutual benefits of its members is exempt from tax, as demonstrated in this case concerning a cooperative bank.

Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar v. ITO
138 Taxmann.com 296 · 2022 · High Court
10
citing judgments

A reassessment order is invalid if the Assessing Officer initiates proceedings based on an alleged transaction but makes no addition to income in respect of that specific transaction in the final assessment order. The reassessment order must be based on actual findings, not merely on initial suspicions that are not substantiated.

Judgments citing Section 13(1)(d)(ii)

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)

held (refer Sale & Gifts above). Therefore in our considered view there is merit in the submission that the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(ii) is not applicable to assessee's case and that the holdings in Tata Sons Ltd., are covered by the exception as provided in section 13

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)

held (refer Sale & Gifts above). Therefore in our considered view there is merit in the submission that the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(ii) is not applicable to assessee's case and that the holdings in Tata Sons Ltd., are covered by the exception as provided in section 13

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)

trust continued to remain invested in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. during the current year leading to violation of Section 13(1)(d)(ii). Assessee referred to the provisions of section 13(1)(d)(ii) and stated that the violation will only happen if any fund of the trust ... Krishna Kumar IV. Mr. A.N. Singh 5.3. The assessee’s trust was established in the year of 1990. Provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) are not applicable in the present case as it is not a case where the funds of the trust were invested in impermissible modes before