How many judgments are there on Section 13(2)(g)?

BharatTax indexes 53 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 13(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 13(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 13(2)(g) of the Income Tax Act?

Vanita Vishram Trust v. Chief Commissioner of Income (327 ITR 121) is the decision most relied on for Section 13(2)(g), cited in 31 judgments. An institution must be established solely for educational purposes and not for commercial activities to be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). Pursuing objects other than education, or having objects that enable commercial activities, disqualifies the institution from such exemption.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 13(2)(g)?

Vanita Vishram Trust v. Chief Commissioner of Income (327 ITR 121) — 31 citing judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, (2011) 53 OTR (Del) 130. Also Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director (351 ITR 184) — 27 citing judgments; DIT (Exemption) v. Girdharilal Shewnarain Tantia Trust (199 ITR 215) — 24 citing judgments; Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Jaipur v. Mahima Shiksha Samiti (79 Taxmann.com 38) — 12 citing judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orpat Charitable Trust (230 Taxmann 66) — 9 citing judgments.

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.332–355

Section 13(2)(g) 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(2)(g) is Vanita Vishram Trust v. Chief Commissioner of Income (327 ITR 121), cited in 31 of the 53 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 13(2)(g)

Vanita Vishram Trust v. Chief Commissioner of Income

327 ITR 121 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

An institution must be established solely for educational purposes and not for commercial activities to be eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi). Pursuing objects other than education, or having objects that enable commercial activities, disqualifies the institution from such exemption.

Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr, (2011) 53 OTR (Del) 130. Also Tolani Education Society v. Deputy Director

351 ITR 184 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

An excess of income over expenditure does not, in itself, mean that an educational institution exists for profit, rather than solely for educational purposes. The primary purpose test is key.

DIT (Exemption) v. Girdharilal Shewnarain Tantia Trust

199 ITR 215 · 1993 · High Court

citing judgments

The real income of a trust, not deemed income, is to be considered for accumulation. Deductions allowable in a normal commercial manner should be applied before determining the income to be excluded.

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Jaipur v. Mahima Shiksha Samiti

79 Taxmann.com 38 · 2017 · ITAT

citing judgments

When assessing the reasonableness of expenses paid by an assessee to a related entity, the Assessing Officer (AO) bears the onus to provide material showing the unreasonableness of the payment. The reasonableness of rent paid by an assessee to a company where trustees are directors can be substantiated by a rental valuation report and by showing the AO has not brought any material to disprove its reasonableness.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Orpat Charitable Trust

230 Taxmann 66 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

1) Surat City Gymkhana v. DCIT (

354 ITR 605 · Reported

citing judgments

SC), (ii) Hiralal Bhagwati vs. CIT (246 ITR 188) (Guj. HC), Stock Exchange Ahmedabad v. ACIT (

10 Taxmann.com 156 · Reported

citing judgments

Green Acres Educational Trust v. DCIT

70 Taxmann.com 347 · 2016 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 13(2)(g)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai

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

ITA 3292/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri. Ronak Doshi & Ms. Mahek SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. K J Foundation, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 13(3)Section 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Catholic Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/Ms. Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Centre for Development Communication Trust, Jaipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Jaipur

ITA 621/JPR/2023[2017-18 onwards]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 40A(3)

Shri Balaji Human Resources Development Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Ward- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4218/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2012-13 Shri Balaji Human Vs. Ito, Resources Development Exemption Ward- Trust, 75-76, Amrit Nagar, 2(2) South Extn.-1, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 003 Pan Aagts6912B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Baheti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Central Academy Jodhpur Education Society, Jodhpur vs. Circle(Exemp.), Jaipur

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

ITA 543/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 164(2)Section 2

Everwn Educational and Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT(Exemption), Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 275/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.275/Chny/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Everwin Educational & Charitable Trust Dcit (Exemption) बनाम/ 12, Redhills Road, A.J. Avenue, Chennai. Vs. Kolathur, Chennai-600 099. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaate-4884-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar !"थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Senthil Kumaran (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumaran (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

Sher-E- Kashmir College of Education, (Unit of) Pir Panchal Education Trust, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officeer Wrd-1(3), Jammu

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee

ITA 177/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10Section 11Section 12Section 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

The ACIT(Exem.), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Adarsh Foundation, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 416/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The Tribunal. The Appeal Is Filed Before The Tribunal On 17.07.2020 Whereas The Appeals Ought To Have Been Filed On Or Before 23.06.2020 This Period Falls Under Covid-Pandemic Situation, Thus Following Hon’Ble Supreme Court Judgment Dated 23.3.2020 In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 Of 2020, Vide Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Extended Time Limit For Filing Appeals W.E.F. 15.3.2020. Thus, There Is No Delay In Filing The Above Appeal. Delay Accordingly Condoned & Take The Appeals Of The Assessee For Adjudication On Merit.

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

Mehta Charity Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy.DIT (E)-I (1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No. 3, raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3009/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, Sr. AR, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(g)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 254(2)

ITO (E)-1(3), Mumbai vs. Hinduja Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7502/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

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

E.K. Educational Trust, Dindigul vs. ITO (Exemptions), Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2242/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Sajive, JCIT

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

The ACIT(E), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Adarsh Foundation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv., with ShriFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DR

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

ITO, Exemption Ward, Salem vs. T.N. Health Trust, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and

ITA 152/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.152/Chny/2020 & C.O No.19/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. T.N. Health Trust, Exemption Ward, No.195, Tamil Sangam Road, Salem. Vs. Rajaram Nagar, Salem, Tamil Nadu-636007. [Pan: Aaatt 6714C] (&'थ(/Respondent/ (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) Cross Objector ) अपीलाथ( की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr. Arv Sreeenivasan, Addl. Cit &'थ( की ओर से /Respondent/ : Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate & Mr. I. Dinesh, Advocate Cross Objector By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem In I.T.A No.233/2018-19 Dated 29.10.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Also Filed Cross Objection In Support Of Appellate Order.

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Sreeenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(g)

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)