“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

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

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

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

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

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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru vs. Cmr Jnanadhara Trust, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)

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

diverted towards the benefit of persons who are closely connected with the creation, establishment and conduct of the affairs of the trust/institution. (II) Section 13(1)(d) - Investment of funds of the trust / institution In modes or forms other than those specified. Section 13(1)(d) provides that exemption from ... section 13(2) of the Act, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(1)(d), the income or the property of the trust or institution or any part of such income or property shall, for the purposes of that clause

Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

ITA 516/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. M. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

specified person of the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act., for such reason the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 dated

Miot Hospitals Medical and Educational Mtrust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1645/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1645/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Miot Hospitals Medical & Income Tax Officer, Educational Trust, Exemptions Ward-4, No.4/112, Mount Poonamallee Road, Chennai Manapakkam, Chennai-89 [Pan: Aabtm3304L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri S.Sundar Raman, Ca अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 161Section 164(2)Section 250

been made in violation of section 11(5) of the Act, that is liable to be taxed and that the violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act does not tantamount to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act to the total income of the Appellant ... chose to reject the arguments and claims put forth by the assessee and made the impugned addition by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(d) and proceeded to deny assessee claim of reduction u/s. 11. As per Para-15 of his order, it was held that since funds have

Petroleum Federation of India, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 645/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

books of account. However, there is no evidence on record that membership fee has been taken as per the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. Revisionary Authority was of the view that membership contribution is a voluntary contribution within the meaning of section 12 which

Petroleum Federation of India, New Delhi vs. CIT (E), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3967/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Suneeta Verma, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 263

St. Joseph'S Education and Medical Relief Society, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax -(E)-II(1), Mumbai

ITA 2509/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 12ASection 80G

absolutely no question of any earning of profit or a business motive in placing such surplus money into bank. H.2. Referring to section 13 (1) (d), the Ld.AR submitted that, exemption is denied under section11 or 12 of the act in case any trust makes investments in any mode other

Vivek Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ITO, Exemption - 1, Jaipur

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

ITA 1134/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 143(1)

this case of charitable or religious institutions MMR is to be applied only on the income as per section 13(1)(c) or section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the intimation of CPC may be modified by instructing for charging tax in parallel to individuals

M/S J Sikile Foundation, Chennai vs. DCIT, Exemption-III, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 83/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.83/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 V. M/S.J Sikile Foundation, The Dcit, Plot No.1025, Street No.44, Exemption-Iii, Tvs Colony, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai. Chennai-600 101. [Pan: Aaats 1630 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.S.Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 234BSection 234D

Tribunal was right in holding that the denial of exemption should only be to the extent of the income which is violative of section 13(1)(d) and not the total denial of exemption under section 11? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... assessee therein was brought under section 164 to be assessed at the maximum marginal rate of tax on account of contravention of section 13(1)(d). The Bombay High Court held that violation of section 1115), read with section 13(1)(d) by the assessee would result in the maximum

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. Navratan Vidha Mandir Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

ITA 201/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 145(3)

investment or deposit. While assessee trust failed to kept excess fund in the mode prescribed u/s 11(5), which is the violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act. 5. Whether Id. CIT(A) is justified in allowing exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act while ... making investments in modes other than those prescribed u/s 11(5) of the Act there was a violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(d). Hence as per the A.O this amounted to a misappropriation of funds and so he 18 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-JAIPUR VS NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai Suburban vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1222/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sir Ratan Tata Trust Dy. Cit(Exemption) – 2(1) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mtnl Tele Bulding, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026

For Appellant: Shri Aatul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the denial of exemption under section l1 of the Act on the alleged violation of section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) of the Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in approving

Ishwar Education and Charitable Trust, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant trust is allowed

ITA 1479/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1479/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.L. TareFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Rajpurohit

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(d)Section 147Section 148ASection 164Section 164(2)Section 2

whole or any part of the relevant income is not exempt under Section 11 or Section 12 because of the contravention of Section 13(1)(d), then tax shall be charged on such income or part thereof, as the case may be, at the maximum marginal rate. In other words ... which a trust is required to deploy its funds. Section 13(1) lays down cases in which Section 11 shall not apply. Under Section 13(1)(d)(iii), it has been laid down that any share in a company, not being a Government company, held by the trust after November

Daivadnya Samjonnati Parishad Mahajanwadi Mandal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption) 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 1141/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde a/w Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

observe that assessing officer in his order has observed that this trust was formed for benefit of a particular community and thus attracted section 13(1)(d) of the Act. We observe from the record that the main object for which the trust was registered was for the benefit

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1743/MUM/2024[ 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

passed order u/s 263 of the Act on 17.03.2021 for making denovo assessment to verify applicability of provisions of section 13(1)(d) on the issue of holding of 2421 shares of M/s. Tata Sons by the assessee. In pursuance of order passed u/s 263 of the Act, the assessing ... found that assessee did not substantiate the investment in shares were covered by the exceptions provided in proviso (i) and (ia) of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(E) held that order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous

The M K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D Shah & Shri Jainam SonaiyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

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)

Rs.70,25,780/- as loan receivable from another trust (sister concern) Ganapathy Educational trust, which is having a similar object and hence violating section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Since, the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) r.w.s ... another society having similar objects was not an investment or a deposit and that therefore, there was no violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of the Act to render withdrawal of exemption under Section 11 of the Act. 16. The learned Senior

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)

which was confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that (i) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (ii) The assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(2)(h) – AY 2014-15 & AY 2018-19 (iii) The assessee ... assessee should not be brought to tax. The AO also called on the assessee to show cause as to why the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2)(h) are not applicable in assessee's case. 4. The assessee made detailed submissions before the AO in this

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)

Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society, New Delhi vs. PCIT Central 3, New Delhi

ITA 1803/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 246ASection 80G

d) as specified violations. Consequently, the registration cannot be cancelled on the ground that the assessee has violated Section 13(l)(c) or Section 13(1)(d). 8.1.10 The Finance Act 2023 has inserted clause (g) in Explanation to Section 12AB(4) to provide that giving incomplete, false, or inaccurate

Shree Hindu Smashan Sanstha, Amravati vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2, Exemptions, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/NAG/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur06 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)

regards the addition of ` 23,32,216, on account of investment in violation of provisions of section 11(5) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Act, we find that there is no scope of adding back the investment as an income only. The income arising out of such investment

Jaipur Engineering College Jaipur Rajasthan Society, Jaipur vs. Circle (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 261/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 164(2)

share of MIOT Hospitals Ltd. AO denied the exemption u/s 11 and 12 on ground that since section 13(1)(d) recognizes investment only in specified assets, failure to invest in such specified business would disentitle the assessee for exemption. CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeals that the entirety ... Exemptions) v. Sheth Mafatlal GagalbhaiFoundation Trust, it was held by Bombay High Court that violation of section 11(5),read with section 13(1)(d) by the assessee would result in the maximum marginal rate of tax only on the dividend income on shares, which was not the recognized mode