← All Phrases

“Section 13(1)(d)”

Section References (mined)Section 13Section 13(1)(d)190 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(d) is CIT v. Fr. Mullers Charitable Institutions (363 ITR 230), cited in 117 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)(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.

National Petroleum Construction Company v. DIT
383 ITR 648 · 2016 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Indian agent providing marketing services, without the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of a foreign company, does not constitute a Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment (DAPE) for the foreign company in India under DTAA provisions.

Linde AG, Linde Engineering Division v. DDIT
365 ITR 1 · 2014 · High Court
55
citing judgments

When contractual obligations are for an entire project, only the income reasonably attributable to operations carried on in India is deemed to accrue or arise in India and falls within the tax net. This principle applies even in consortium arrangements where members have broader contractual roles, and income from supply of equipment should be characterized appropriately.

Judgments citing Section 13(1)(d)

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2116/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee by alleging violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act The Appellant prays that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act be granted ... there is no violation under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if it were held

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 2115/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee by alleging violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act The Appellant prays that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act be granted ... there is no violation under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if it were held

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1316/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee by alleging violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act The Appellant prays that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act be granted ... there is no violation under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if it were held

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1314/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee by alleging violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act The Appellant prays that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act be granted ... there is no violation under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if it were held

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1302/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee by alleging violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act The Appellant prays that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act be granted ... there is no violation under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if it were held

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

ITA 1301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 164(2)Section 2Section 250

denying exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee by alleging violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act The Appellant prays that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act be granted ... there is no violation under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the Appellant's contention that even if it were held

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 773/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 773/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2016-17) Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaats1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Amol Kirtane, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amol Kirtane, CIT-DR
Section 11(5)Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee is covered by the exceptions carved out under proviso to Section 13(1)(d). आअसं.773/मुं/2021(िन.व.2016-17) 31. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we have noted that ... Income Tax Act, 1961. Also, whether any investment of the trust in the last three years is covered by the provisions of Section 13(1)(d), please specify the same". In reply to this requisition, the assessee had duly furnished all the details of the investments held by the assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1317/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2008-09
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 11(5)(xii)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

funds of the trust have not been invested or deposited for any part of the year in consonance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate of tax. During the year, from the records ... earned capital gains on sale of quoted shares and invested in unquoted shares which is a prohibited mode of investment as per Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the investment in prohibited mode to the extent of Rs.1034 Crores has escaped from being taxed. The profit on sale

Shri Anil Nanda, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3318/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Anil Nanda, Vs Dcit, 12-C, Friends Colony, Circle-68(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aafpn4381A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Ostwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St March, 2017 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th July, 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.8,25,64,675/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30Th October, 2009 Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 After Recording The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Ostwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 246

submitted that the 15 legislature in its wisdom did not include the word “deposit” in this section while in other sections like section 13(1)(d)(i), the word “deposit” has been used as against ”loan” in section 13(2)(a). Thus, the two terms have been used differently

Director of Income Tax vs. Shree Radha Krishan Charitabel Trust

ITA - 383 / 2008HC Delhi30 Mar 2011
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

acquired by the trust amounting to `62.50 lacs were not disposed of within the time and they were hit by the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He, thus, reopened the assessment by issuing notice dated 20.03.2002 under Section 147/148 of the Act for the Assessment ... were received and because of these irregularities committed by the assessee in not disposing the shares within the stipulated period, the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) were attracted, thereby losing the benefit of Section 11 of the Act. He, thus, denied the exemption to the assessee provided under