Which cases are most cited on Section 13(2)(h)?

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66) — 201 citing judgments; CIT v. Indian National Theatre Trust (305 ITR 149) — 45 citing judgments; DIT (Exemption) v. Jasubhai Foundation (374 ITR 315) — 41 citing judgments; CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal (1 SCC 236) — 35 citing judgments; JRD Tata Trust v. DCIT (122 Taxmann.com 275) — 31 citing judgments.

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

BharatTax indexes 28 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

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

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66) is the decision most relied on for Section 13(2)(h), cited in 201 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.

The decision most relied on for Section 13(2)(h) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 201 of the 28 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 13(2)(h)

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court

201

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. 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.

DIT (Exemption) v. Jasubhai Foundation

374 ITR 315 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim exemption for specific income streams under Section 10, such as dividend income under Section 10(34), independently of the provisions of Section 11. Income exempted under Section 10 is not restricted or overridden by Section 11 for trusts.

CCE v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal

1 SCC 236 · 2011 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The doctrine of substantial compliance allows for leniency when minor or inconsequential procedural requirements are not met, as long as the essence and substance of the conditions for exemption are fulfilled. However, mandatory conditions must be strictly obeyed.

JRD Tata Trust v. DCIT

122 Taxmann.com 275 · 2020 · ITAT

citing judgments

Bharat Kalyan Pratisthan v. DIT(Exemption)

299 ITR 406 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

A trust is entitled to the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act if the notice of accumulation is furnished before the completion of assessment.

M.N. Desai Charitable Trust v. CIT

172 ITR 382 · 1988 · High Court

citing judgments

For a donation to be eligible for exemption under Section 11, it must be voluntary and of a capital nature, intended for the corpus of the trust, rather than income derived from its application for charitable purposes. Contributions made expressly to the capital or corpus of a trust are not considered income for the purposes of Section 11.

CIT v. JK Charitable Trust

196 ITR 31 · 1992 · High Court

citing judgments

National Engg. Co-ordination Committee v. Asst. CIT

43 ITD 612 · 1992 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Working Women's Forum\n

53 Taxmann.com 85 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 13(2)(h)

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 4728/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyatata Education Trust, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatt 9835A

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 154

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BKC MUMBAI vs. TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3441/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

DCIT 26(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2484/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 26(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2483/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4852/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4727/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4282/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)