Which cases are most cited on Section 13(1)(c)?

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66) — 206 citing judgments; CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (402 ITR 441) — 187 citing judgments; CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 ITR 21) — 112 citing judgments; 1. Father Mullers Charitable Institutions 363 IT 230 (Kar.) 2. DIT(E) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (249 ITR 533) — 108 citing judgments; AGARWAL WAREHOUSING AND LEASING LTD. v. CIT (257 ITR 235) — 102 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 13(1)(c)?

BharatTax indexes 697 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

Q: What is the leading case on Section 13(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66) is the decision most relied on for Section 13(1)(c), cited in 206 judgments. Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 13(1)(c) 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) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 of the 697 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 13(1)(c)

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court

206

citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona

402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court

187

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

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.

AGARWAL WAREHOUSING AND LEASING LTD. v. CIT

257 ITR 235 · 2002 · High Court

102

citing judgments

Orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are binding on all revenue authorities, including the Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals), functioning under its jurisdiction. Judicial discipline requires subordinate authorities to follow these orders unreservedly, and failure to do so constitutes judicial impropriety and an error in law.

CIT v. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust

198 ITR 598 · 1992 · High Court

citing judgments

When computing the income of a charitable trust for exemption under Section 11, depreciation must be allowed as an application of income based on commercial principles. This does not constitute a double deduction.

U.P.Pollution Control Board v. Kanoria Industrial Limited

2 SCC 549 · 2001 · Reported

citing judgments

The State Government's power to levy Forest Development Tax (FDT) under Section 98-A of the Act is limited to specific bodies. Notifying 'lease holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area' as such a body may be ultra vires the section.

M/s Safdurjung Enclave Educational Society v. Municipal Corporation Delhi

3 SCC 390 · 1992 · Reported

citing judgments

Activities run on commercial lines do not fall within the ambit of charitable objects. Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable to such activities.

CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust

305 ITR 149 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

A loan advanced by a charitable trust to another charitable trust can be treated as an application of income for the purpose of availing exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act.

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association v. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

360 ITR 633 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Violation of the conditions under Section 13 of the Income Tax Act does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the activities of a trust are not in accordance with its objects. The revenue must demonstrate that the dominant activities are in the nature of trade, commerce, or business, not merely based on the volume of receipts.

Judgments on Section 13(1)(c)

Bhansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1147/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1147, 1133, 1134 & 1136/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2009-10 & 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

Bhansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1136/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

Bhansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1134/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

Bhansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1133/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 36

Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions) vs. Mallikarjun Health Care & Research Centre, Solapur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 700/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant ChapekarFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 41A

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. St. Xavier Educational & Charitable Trust, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1192/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1192/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Mrs. S. Vidya, C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)

M/S Seth Gaja Nand Goyal Educational and Social Welfare Society, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 969/CHANDI/2017[0000-00]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Apr 2018AY 0000-00

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year:

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Sinha, DR

Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 18Section 2(15)

Mahatma Gandhi State Institute of Public Administration, Chandigarh vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

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

ITA 1262/CHANDI/2017[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2018AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms.Annapurna Guptamahatma Gandhi State Institute Vs. The C.I.T., Exemptions, Of Public Administration Chandigarh. Sector 26, Chandigarh. Pan: Aaajm0319A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, AdvFor Respondent: Manu Malik, CIT DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(a)

DCIT., (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Balajee Arun Educational Society, Secunderabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1919/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmandy. Commissioner Of Vs Balajee Arun Educational Income Tax (Exemptions) Society Hyderabad Circle, Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aaefb 8808 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna, DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40

M/S. Orissa Cricket Association, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, ITA No.335/CTK/2017 is allowed and ITA

ITA 210/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Cit(Exemptions), Barabati Stadium,Cuttack-753001, Hyderabad Odisha, Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F & Orissa Cricket Association Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Barabati Stadium, Cuttack Cuttack-753001, Odisha Pan No. : Aaaao 0319 F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saad Kidwai, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan & D.Das, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

Section 120Section 12ASection 254(2)

Singhania Foundation Education Trust, Kolkata vs. DDIT (Exemptions)-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1368/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Singhania Foundation Vs. Ddit(Exempt)-1, Kolkata Education Trust E-12, 1St Floor, 75C, Park Street, 71, 10B, Middleton Row, 5T H Kolkata – 700 016. Floor, Kolkata. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacts 6459 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri K. M. Roy & Anshuman Tiwari, Ar Respondent By :Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–25, Kolkata, In Appeal No.143/2014-15, Dated 15.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3)/11 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 11.01.2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal As Under: “1.That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Denying Benefit U/S 11 Of It Act By Applying Explanation To Section 11(2) Of The It Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That The Sum Of Rs.2283087/- Has Been Applied /Spent For Educational Purposes Out Of Current Year’S Income & There Was No Application For Accumulation. 2.That Ld. Ci(Ta) Could Not Appreciate The Precedents For Earlier Years Under Similar Facts & Circumstances & Has Dealt The Issue Which Was Not The Subject Matter Of Assessment In A Altogether Different Manner. 3.That Appellant Reserves The Right To Raise Additional Grounds At The Time Of Hearing.” 3. The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That Return Of Income For A.Y 2010-11 Was Filed By The Trust On 28.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 20.03.2012. Later

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy & Anshuman Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT

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

ITO (E) 2(4), Mumbai vs. The Chembur Gymkhana, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 363/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BapatFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

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

Sree Sree Mohanananda Brahmachari Medical Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. DDIT(E)-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1333/KOL/2014[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Sree Sree Mohanananda Vs. Ddit(E)-I, Kolkata Brahmachari Medical Welfare Trust 10B Middleton Row, Kolkata- Ae-467, Salt Lake City, 700071 Kolkata – 700 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2002-03, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-Xiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.762/Cit(A)-Xiv/2011-12, Dated 18.03.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1.For That The Order Of Assessment Is Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law & Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts. 2.For That The Assessment Order Is Opposed To Requirement In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3.For That The Assessment Is Made In Arbitrary, Violence Of Natural Justice, Without Application Of Mind & Not Tenable In Law. 4.For That The Order Of Authorities Below Is Grossly Unjustified In Disallowing The Claim Of Rs.54,83,854/- U/S 11(2) Of The Act. The Contention Of The Assessing Officer Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas,ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri VigyaneshwarNathDatta, Advocate

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 254

M/S. Brahmanand Shiksha Parasar Samiti, Panipat vs. CIT, Haryana

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

ITA 6567/DEL/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Aneja, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 1ZSection 40A(3)

The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Adharshila Education & Charitable Trust, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2797/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2797/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri B.T. Thakkar, AR

Section 13(1)(c)

ITO (E), New Delhi vs. East Point Education Society, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 6594/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 6594/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer (E), Vs East Point Education Society, Trust Ward-1(1), Fc-26, Vashundhara Enclave, New Delhi Dallupura, New Delhi-110096 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaate2296E Assessee By : Sh. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 22.09.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

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