IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4324/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23)

National Institute of Construction Management and Research, Walchand Centre, Walchand Terraces, Tardeo Road, AC Market ............... Appellant Mumbai – 400034 PAN : AAATN1348J v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle - 2, ……………… Respondent MTNL Tel Ex Building, Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Mumbai - 400026 Assessee by : Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv.

Shri Ravi Sawana, Ms. Neha Sharma Ms. Prativa Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 04/12/2025 Date of Order - 09/01/2026

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated

04.06.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, [“learned CIT(E)”], under section 12AB(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) cancelling the registration granted to the assessee under section 12A of the Act.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

“Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai ("CIT(E)"), the Appellant begs to prefer the present appeal on the following grounds which are without prejudice to each other:

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) grossly erred in cancelling the registration granted to the Appellant under Section 12A of the Act vide order dated 24.09.2021 for Assessment Years

2022-23 to 2026-27, with effect from the date of the said order.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) grossly erred in holding that the activities of the Appellant being CBP, MDP and Research & Consultancy, are in violation of Section 2(15) and Section 11(4A) of the Act, falling within the definition of 'Specified Violation' under clause (b)

of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) grossly erred in holding that the activities like conducting programmes in Construction & Construction Management carried on by the Appellant are not a charitable activity in the nature of 'education' u/s. 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) grossly erred in holding that the activities consisting of CBP, MDP and Research & Consultancy carried on by the Appellant are not a part of the educational activities but are business activities.

5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) erred in holding that the Appellant has not maintained separate books of accounts in respect of its activities consisting of CBP, MDP and Research & Consultancy and hence, the Appellant is in violation of Section 11(4A) of the Act.

6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) grossly erred in not appreciating that the entire assets of the Appellant-Trust are a property held under trust, wherefrom all the activities including the alleged business activities are being undertaken and therefore, Section 11(4)

shall be applicable and Section 11(4A) shall have no applicability.

7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) grossly erred in not following the judgment of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of the Appellant, where the Tribunal had concluded that the activities carried on by the Appellant are in the nature of 'education' u/s. 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(E) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant is carrying on the educational activities is also supported by the approval received by the Appellant-Trust to establish NICMAR University by the Maharashtra & Telangana Government.

9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in la