Charitable trust exemption is confined to the prohibited benefit, while procedural defects in reporting do not by themselves defeat substantiated claims.

Under the statutory scheme discussed, section 13(1)(c) limits denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 to the income or expenditure that directly or indirectly benefits persons specified in section 13(3); it does not justify wholesale denial of exemption. The note also states that revenue expenditure paid to a concern is not disallowable merely because of alleged specified-concern status where the voting-power threshold is not met, and that procedural mistakes in Form 10B are not fatal. For capital expenditure, invoices and supporting documents were treated as sufficient, and non-mention in Form 10B, absence of open tender, and alleged non-response to notice under section 133(6) were not regarded as defeating the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 could extend beyond the income or expenditure found to have conferred benefit on persons referred to in section 13(3); (ii) whether the disallowance of revenue expenditure paid to the concerned entity was sustainable on the ground that it was a specified concern under section 13(3); (iii) whether the disallowance of capital expenditure was justified on the grounds of specified concern status, lack of substantiation, non-reporting in Form 10B, absence of open tender, and alleged non-compliance with notice under section 133(6).

Issue (i): Whether denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12 could extend beyond the income or expenditure found to have conferred benefit on persons referred to in section 13(3).

Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 13(1)(c) operates only to exclude from exemption that part of the income which is directly or indirectly applied for the benefit of persons specified in section 13(3). The disallowance is therefore confined to the extent of the violation and cannot result in wholesale denial of exemption under sections 11 and 12.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee; the disallowance of 15% of gross receipts was deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the disallowance of revenue expenditure paid to the concerned entity was sustainable on the ground that it was a specified concern under section 13(3).

Analysis: The trustee's voting power in the recipient concern was below the threshold required under Explanation 3 to section 13, and the concern therefore did not qualify as a specified concern for the impugned disallowance. The related rent and interest payments had also been accepted in part, and a mistake in Form 10B was treated as procedural and not fatal to the exemption claim.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee; the disallowance of revenue expenditure was deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether the disallowance of capital expenditure was justified on the grounds of specified concern status, lack of substantiation, non-reporting in Form 10B, absence of open tender, and alleged non-compliance with notice under section 133(6).

Analysis: The expenditure was supported by invoices and connected documents, and the obligation to demonstrate actual payment before application of income was not treated as mandatory for the period in question, prior to insertion of Explanation 7 to section 11. Non-mention in Form 10B did not defeat the claim, as the form was procedural and the purchase was reflected in the return and balance sheet. The absence of open tender and the alleged non-response under section 133(6) were not accepted as fatal defects.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee; the disallowance of capital expenditure was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessment additions made by denying exemption and by disallowing the impugned revenue and capital expenditure were set aside, and the assessee's appeal succeeded in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where charitable trust income is found to have been applied for the benefit of persons covered by section 13(3), the exemption under sections 11 and 12 is denied only to the extent of the prohibited benefit, and procedural defects in reporting do not by themselves nullify otherwise substantiated charitable application of income.

---