Section 13

Section 13 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 13, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The trust held an investment that breaches s.11(5) read with s.13(1)(d). Does that cost us exemption on everything, or only on the income from that investment?
  Only on the income from that investment. The Telangana High Court read ss.11 and 13 together and held that the legislature did not intend the denial of s.11 to extend to the entire income; only the income from the investment made in violation of s.13(1)(d) is liable to tax. It agreed with the Bombay, Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, which had all taken that view.
• CIT (Exemptions) v Audyogik Shikshan Mandal High CourtHelps taxpayer
  Trust funds went to a trustee. Does the trust lose exemption on all its income or only that amount?
  Only that amount. Denial of exemption under s.11 is confined to the sum actually diverted in breach of s.13; s.13 withdraws the benefit in respect of the offending income or property, not for the trust as a whole.
• DIT (Exemption) v Charanjiv Charitable Trust High CourtHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  My trust paid an advance to a company in which the trustees are interested, under an agreement to buy land, and the deal was later cancelled. Is that a s.13(1)(c) violation even though no money went out in the year in question?
  Yes, on these facts. The Delhi High Court held that where trust funds remain with a s.13(3) person without interest or security, that is a direct use of the funds for the benefit of a prohibited person, and s.13(2)(a) makes clear that it is enough that the money continues to be lent during the previous year — no fresh advance in that year is needed. The agreements to sell were treated as a device to take the payments out of the word 'lent', and exemption under s.11 was denied for both years.
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v DGIT (Exemptions) High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My institution is a statutory regulator that charges fees for coaching and placement and ends up with a surplus — does that make it a trade or business under the proviso to section 2(15)?
  No. The Delhi High Court held that a body incorporated to regulate a profession, which imparts education and training as part of that statutory function, is not carrying on trade, commerce or business merely because it charges fees and generates a surplus. Coaching classes and campus placement interviews were held to be activities in furtherance of the Institute's main object, so they are neither business nor services rendered in relation to any trade, commerce or business. The orders refusing exemption were set aside and the Director General was directed to recognise the Institute under section 10(23C)(iv) for assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12.
• CMR Engineering Educational Society v DCIT ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  After a search the PCIT (Central) has cancelled my society's registration under s.12AB(4) for a 'specified violation', relying on loose sheets and statements. Does he have to prove one of the listed violations, or is a general finding of misuse enough?
  He has to prove one of the listed violations. Section 12AB(4) as amended by the Finance Act 2022 is not a general power to withdraw registration: cancellation can follow only on the occurrence of one or more of the 'specified violations' defined in the Explanation to that sub-section, and the onus of establishing that occurrence lies on the Department. Suspicion, however strong, will not do.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.