IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.4474/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: NA)

Aditya Birla Education Trust vs Commissioner of Income-tax B-4, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. (Exemption), Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai- 601, 6^th Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL 400030 TE Building, Pedder Ropad, Dr. PAN: AACTA4967C Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Soparkar (virtually appear), Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Ms. Sejal Nahata Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)

Date of hearing : 09/09/2025 Date of pronouncement : 19/09/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld. CIT(E)’] passed under section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act) date of order 30/06/2025.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: -

“1. GROUND NO. 1: DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF OBJECTS AND REGISTRATION US, 12AB OF THE ACT:

1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CTT(E) erred in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(v) for modification of the approved objects of the Appellant Trust and in doing so, further erred in rejecting the grant of registration u's. 12AB of the Act which is otherwise valid till AY 2026-27.

1.2. The Id. CTT(E) failed to appreciate and ought to have considered that:

a. Rejection of registration of modification of the approved objects of the Appellant based on the alleged violations are beyond his powers granted u/s. 12AB(1)(b) of the Act.

b. Even otherwise, the activities carried out by the Appellant are wholly undertaken within India and any collaboration with international institutions is solely to support and promote advancement of education in India and therefore, entering into such collaborations does not constitute a violation of section 11 of the Act.

c. The payments made to overseas institutions are exclusively towards activities in connection with educational and charitable activities carried out in India and therefore, the same do not amount to application of funds outside India. Accordingly, it does not constitute violation of section 11 nor can it be considered as specified violation as defined in clause (e)(ii) of explanation to section 12AB(4)

of the Act.

d. The Trust Deed merely provides a preference to "deserving caves of Hindi speaking students and ur students from Marwari community without restricting the benefit exclusively to such community and therefore, it does not constitute violation of section 13(1)(b) of the Act.

e. The activities of developmental programs, workshops, seminars, webinars etc. are also an extension of the main activity of 'education' or at best activities in the nature of general public utility and cannot be read in isolation thereof.

1.3 The Appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned order denying the application for modification of the objects and in the process denying the registration u/s. 12AB for be held as bad in law and the same be set aside/quashed and that the Id. CIT(E) be directed to grant the approval to modification of the objects.”

GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

3. The assessee is a charitable trust carrying out educational activities by running a school of Cambridge curriculum as also a school for disabled children. Apart from this, the trust is also undertaking various other activities including spreading awareness of mental health, menstrual health care and allied activities. The trust activities encompass six verticals as elucidated in its letter to Ld. CIT(E) dated June 25, 2025, as also set out in its Impact Report – 2024-25. The s