Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 13(1)(c)(ii) falls under section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to sections 332 to 355 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, the provisions on registered non-profit organisations.

Read the 2025 provisions

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(c)(ii) is Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT (358 ITR 78), cited in 58 of the 74 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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

Bureau of Indian Standards v. DGIT
358 ITR 78 · 2013 · High Court
58
citing judgments
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.

Tranvancore Cements Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
305 ITR 170 · 2008 · High Court
37
citing judgments

Once an Assessing Officer forms a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issues a notice under section 148, they can assess or reassess income related to other issues not originally included in the reasons recorded.

Surat City Gymkhana v. Dy.CIT
254 ITR 733 · 2002 · High Court
37
citing judgments

The burden of proof lies on the Assessing Officer (AO) to establish that a trust or charitable institution is hit by the provisions of Section 13. General allegations or mere transactions with interested persons are insufficient unless concrete benefit is proven.

DIT(E) v. Charanjiv Charitable Trust
43 Taxmann.com 300 · 2014 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on a capital asset even if its cost was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. Allowing depreciation does not constitute double allowance.

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.

(i) CIT v. Standing Conference of Public Enterprises (Scope)
319 ITR 179 · 2009 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Income from sources such as fixed deposit interest, dividend income, and profits from the sale of investments are not taxable when they arise from a relationship of mutuality.

CIT v. Bholaram Educational Society
101 Taxmann.com 193 · 2019 · Supreme Court
13
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act is not denied to a trust where rent paid to a trustee for property is not excessive, even if the trustee is related to the settlors.

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 on Section 13(1)(c)(ii)

Marougen Edu Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 163/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Marougen Edu Foundation, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax No.17/1, Campbell Road, Austin Town, (Central), Bengaluru – 560 047. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabtm 0820 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2021 Of The Pr.Cit (Central), Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Issued A Notice Dated 03.12.2018 In Which The Ao Pointed Out That There Was A Survey Under Section 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Conducted In The Premises Of The Assessee On 03.11.2016. The Ao Has Also Mentioned In The Said Notice That The Documents Impounded At The Time Of Survey Show That The Assessee Which Claims Exemption Under Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 263

M/S. Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Jodhpur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

ITA 44/JODH/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 03/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

Chandmall Sarawgi Charitable Trust, A- Block, Mahabir Market, H.B.Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati - 781001, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3)/ Exemptions Aayakar Bhawan, G.S.Road, Christain Basti, Guwahati - 781005, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Chandmall Sarawgi V/S. Acit (Trust Circle) Charitable Trust, A-Block, Now As Income Tax Mahabir Market, H.B. Road, Officer, Ward- Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati- 2(3)(Exemption) 781001 [Pan No.Aaatc 2439 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Amitava Sen, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-12-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 18-12-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bemch:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Guwahati’S Order Dated 27.10.2017 Passed In Case No. Guwa-87/2014-15/15 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Sole Substantive Issue(S) That Arises For Our Apt Adjudication In The Instant Lis Is That Of Correctness Of The Lower Authorities Action Invoking Sec. 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(B) Disallowance Of ₹4,47,980/- On The Ground That The Assessee’S Trustee, Shri Ganpat Rai Sarawgi Was Found To Have Been Residing In The Trust’S Residential Property Without Paying Any Rent. The Revenue’S Case As Per Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Is That Shri Sarawgi Has Not Paid Any Rent Much Less Than Adequate Rent U/S. 13(1)(C)(B) Of The Act & Therefore

Section 11(2)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)