← 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)

Pradeep Kumar, Jhujhunu vs. ITO Ward -2, Jhujhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

that said company is a specified person of assessee—According to Assessing Officer, assessee is hit by Section 13(1)(c)(ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for such reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee had deposited

Parab Maratha Samaj, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1821/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Parab Maratha Samaj, Nfac, Delhi बिधम/ 10, 5Th Floor Mahohar Bldg, Priti Kanha, Chitable Path, Vs. Dadar(W), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaatp4197P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Shah, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 09.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1821/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 denying 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) had allowed the assessee ... Exemptions) V. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, It was held by Bombay High Court that Violation of section 1 1(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

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 denying 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) had allowed the assessee ... Exemptions) V. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, It was held by Bombay High Court that Violation of section 1 1(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

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1829/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 denying 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) had allowed the assessee ... Exemptions) V. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, It was held by Bombay High Court that Violation of section 1 1(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

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 denying 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) had allowed the assessee ... Exemptions) V. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, It was held by Bombay High Court that Violation of section 1 1(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

M/A Adinath Jain Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 85/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.84 & 85/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Adinath Jain Trust Exemptions Ward-2, 21, V.V.Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai. Chennai-600 112. Pan: Aaata 6919J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)

when it was held in the order "that the same (property Advance) could not be held as investment or deposit as stated in section 13(1)(d) of the Act". The learned CIT(A) had held that there is was no violation of section 13(1)( d) but arbitrarily dismissed ... land, but the assessee could not produce any evidences. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated loans & advances of Rs.27,50,000/- as violation of section 13(1) (d) of the Act, and thus, rejected exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for both the assessment years. The Assessing Officer

M/S Adinath Jain Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions, Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 84/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.84 & 85/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Adinath Jain Trust Exemptions Ward-2, 21, V.V.Koil Street, Choolai, Chennai. Chennai-600 112. Pan: Aaata 6919J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. N.Sanjay Gandhi, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)

when it was held in the order "that the same (property Advance) could not be held as investment or deposit as stated in section 13(1)(d) of the Act". The learned CIT(A) had held that there is was no violation of section 13(1)( d) but arbitrarily dismissed ... land, but the assessee could not produce any evidences. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated loans & advances of Rs.27,50,000/- as violation of section 13(1) (d) of the Act, and thus, rejected exemption claimed u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for both the assessment years. The Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

next year, as contemplated in the explanation to section 11(1). ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 10 Section 13(1)(d) provides that the income of any public trust will not be exempt u/s. 11 if it holds for any period during a previous year ... 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

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 assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1300/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2010-11
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 164(2)

next year, as contemplated in the explanation to section 11(1). ITA No. 1315/Mum/2018 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 3 of 10 Section 13(1)(d) provides that the income of any public trust will not be exempt u/s. 11 if it holds for any period during a previous year ... 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

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3081/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri S N Kabra
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

upholding the action of Income-tax Officer (Exemptions)-2(2)(„the learned Assessing Officer‟) in concluding that the assessee has violated provisions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”). The Appellant prays that the conclusion reached by the learned ... learned Assessing Officer, holding the Appellant violative of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act, be declared as erroneous. 2 ITA. No. 3155 & 3081/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer

ACIT- 17 (3), Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

ITA 3153/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (dR)
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(d)

trust and claimed exemption u/s.11 of the I T Act which is denied by the AO due to violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust ... without appreciating the fact that the main purpose of the trust is defeated as there is violation to the provision of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act.” 9. In respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal of the revenue, the Ld. AR drew our attention

ACIT- 17 (3), Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

ITA 3152/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (dR)
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(d)

trust and claimed exemption u/s.11 of the I T Act which is denied by the AO due to violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust ... without appreciating the fact that the main purpose of the trust is defeated as there is violation to the provision of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act.” 9. In respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal of the revenue, the Ld. AR drew our attention

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(4) (No Assessed by the ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

ITA 3080/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (dR)
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(d)

trust and claimed exemption u/s.11 of the I T Act which is denied by the AO due to violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust ... without appreciating the fact that the main purpose of the trust is defeated as there is violation to the provision of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act.” 9. In respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal of the revenue, the Ld. AR drew our attention

Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(4) (Now Assessed by the ACIT-17(3) ), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

ITA 3079/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (dR)
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13Section 13(1)(d)

trust and claimed exemption u/s.11 of the I T Act which is denied by the AO due to violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust ... without appreciating the fact that the main purpose of the trust is defeated as there is violation to the provision of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act.” 9. In respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal of the revenue, the Ld. AR drew our attention

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 784/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT–DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

aforesaid notice observed that assessee has invested its funds in shares which is prohibited mode of investment prescribed under section 11(5) r.w. section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The CIT further observed that unless such an investment is covered under exceptions provided under section 13(1)(d

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

In the result, appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 783/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT–DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

aforesaid notice observed that assessee has invested its funds in shares which is prohibited mode of investment prescribed under section 11(5) r.w. section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The CIT further observed that unless such an investment is covered under exceptions provided under section 13(1)(d

Audit Bureau of Circulations, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6393/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Nahta &For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 11Section 13Section 13(8)Section 2(15)

1 ITA No. 6393/Mum/2016 & ITA Nos.2040 to 2043/Mum/2019 AYs. 2009-10 to 2014-15 M/s Audit Bureau of Circulations Vs

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 2162/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

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 2161/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