ADITYA BIRLA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

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.”

Aditya Birla Education Trust 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.”

(a) Aditya Birla World Academy (ABWA) which provides world class education to the students in India by training them under Cambridge Assessment International Examination (CAIE) and under international Baccalaureate diploma programme (IBDP).

(b) Aditya Birla Education Academy (ABEA) which nurtures the aspirations of dedicated educators in India.

(c) Aditya Birla Integrated School (TABIS) which focuses on value-based quality education to children with intellectual and learning difficulties.

(d) MPower which promotes education on mental health and well-being in India, seeks to transform mental health landscape in India by alleviating stigma and creating awareness.

(e) Nalanda which provides supportive environment and educates students with learning difficulties, school dropouts, slow learners, etc.

3.1 The trust was formed on dated January 16, 2009. It had obtained certificate u/s. 12AA of the Act on November 11, 2009. The said trust deed was modified in 2013 and the same was approved by the Charity Commissioner on September 07, 2013. Pursuant to the change in the Income Tax Act, the trust applied for re- registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i) on April 22, 2021. The registration in respect thereof was granted for a period of five years up to AY 2026-27 as per order of the DIT dated May 28, 2021. On January 28, 2022, the Trustees of the trust passed a resolution for modification of the trust deed mainly with a view to clearly provide for specific objects relating to medical relief. The activities of medical relief were being carried out hitherto under the omnibus object of general public utility in the original trust deed. The revised trust deed was approved the Charity Commissioner on September 02, 2024.

3.2 In view of the modification of the object clause of the trust deed, the assessee made an application before the Ld. CIT(E) for approval of the modified objects as required u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(v) on December 24, 2024. The Ld. CIT(E) has by order dated June 30, 2025, being the impugned order, rejected the application of the assessee and has held that “grant of registration stands rejected”. Being aggrieved the appeal is filed by the assessee challenging such rejection of grant of registration.

5. Further it was submitted that the objects of the trust as mentioned in Original trust deed of 2009 includes, inter alia, Clause 4(ii)(a) the object “To establish, manage, run, control either by themselves or jointly with others including other institutions, educational institutions for the purposes of imparting education and not for the purpose of profit and to support and promote advancement of educational institutional activities in all its branches such as kindergarten, primary, secondary and high school and colleges, both of Indian and international curriculum, leading up to and teaching degree courses in Arts, Science, Commerce, Law, Management, Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy, Music, Fine Arts, Architecture and such other educational subjects and courses as the Trustees may deem fit.

Aditya Birla Education Trust 6. The Ld.AR further argued that the trust imparts education in Cambridge and IB board curriculum from its very inception. The 2009 Trust deed was subject matter of approval by the Ld. CIT at that time. This aspect was reiterated in the 2013 amendment in clause 6(i) thereof. This amended trust deed was also a subject matter of approval in 2021. Therefore, the observation made by the Ld. CIT(E) in para 4.5 of the impugned order which is reproduced as below: - “Thus, the applicant carried out expenditure out of India prior to such amendment of the Trust deed, when no such enabling clause was specified in the old trust deed.”,

7. It is further submitted that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11(1)(a) of the Act and not u/s. 11(1)(c) of the Act as sought to be made out by the Ld. CIT(E) in para 4.4. Section 11(1)(a) of the Act requires that the income should be applied for charitable purposes in India. The Ld. CIT(E) noted in the order that the assessee had paid 6.5 crore outside India. The Ld. AR argued that this does not mean that the payment for expenses towards the charitable activities carried out in India cannot be made outside India. If such an interpretation is taken, then, no charitable hospital will be able to import any equipment, machinery or medicines from a foreign country.

“1.3. A National Curricular and Pedagogical Framework for Early Childhood Care and Education (NCPFECCE) for children up to the age of 8 will be developed by NCERT in two parts, namely, a sub- framework for 0-3 year-olds, and a sub-framework for 3-8 year- olds, aligned with the above guidelines, the latest research on ECCE, and national and international best practices… (FPB Pg 2824) … 4.20. In addition to high quality offerings in Indian languages and English, foreign languages, such as Korean, Japanese, Thai, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Russian, will also be offered at the secondary level, for students to learn about the cultures of the world and to enrich their global knowledge and mobility according to their own interests and aspirations. (FPB Pg 2832) … 5.15. Teachers will be given continuous opportunities for self- improvement and to learn the latest innovations and advances in their professions. These will be offered in multiple modes, including in the form of local, regional, state, national, and international workshops as well as online teacher development modules. Platforms (especially online platforms) will be developed so that teachers may share ideas and best practices… (FPB Pg 2839) … Aditya Birla Education Trust 5.27. It is recognized that there may be several pedagogical approaches internationally for teaching particular subjects; NCERT will study, research, document, and compile the varied international pedagogical approaches for teaching different subjects and make recommendations on what can be learnt and assimilated from these approaches into the pedagogies being practiced in India. (FPB Pg 2841) … 12.8. …Furthermore, research collaboration and student exchanges between Indian institutions and global institutions will be promoted through special efforts. Credits acquired in foreign universities will be permitted, where appropriate as per the requirements of each HEI, to be counted for the award of a degree. (FPB Pg 2856) … 16.8. The National Skills Qualifications Framework will be detailed further for each discipline vocation and profession. Further, Indian standards will be aligned with the International Standard Classification of Occupations maintained by the International Labour Organization. This Framework will provide the basis for Recognition of Prior Learning. Through this, dropouts from the formal system will be reintegrated by aligning their practical experience with the relevant level of the Framework. The credit- based Framework will also facilitate mobility across ‘general’ and vocational education. (FPB Pg 2861)

Aditya Birla Education Trust … 23.4. To remain relevant in the fast-changing field of educational technology, the NETF will maintain a regular inflow of authentic data from multiple sources including educational technology innovators and practitioners and will engage with a diverse set of researchers to analyze the data. To support the development of a vibrant body of knowledge and practice, the NETF will organize multiple regional and national conferences, workshops, etc. to solicit inputs from national and international educational technology researchers, entrepreneurs, and practitioners. (FPB Pg 2874)” (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Ld. AR thus, submitted that indeed, the activity of imparting Cambridge and IB courses to students in India is in alignment with the National Education Policy. Imparting of these courses without payment to foreign institutions is not possible. The allegation of the Ld. CIT(E) in para 4.1 that the assessee is intending to provide activities other than education outside India is misleading and arising out of misreading of clause 7(II)(A)(k). The said clause reads as under:

“To design, organize; manage, conduct and operate whether on its own or in association with other persons and / or organizations including overseas organizations; bodies; universities, educational institutions etc. programs, certifications, competitions including international competitions, workshops, seminars, webinars etc. including but not limited to education training and development

CIT(E) v. Ohio University Christ College [2018] 408 ITR 352 (Karnataka HC). In this case, the question before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was as follows:

Aditya Birla Education Trust “(1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting faculty teaching charges to Ohio University towards academic expenses by holding that merely because the payments are made outside India, it cannot be said that the charitable activities were also conducted outside India even when the assessee has applied its income for charitable activities outside India and not within which is an essential condition as set out in section 11 of the Act and the assessee has not been granted such exemption by CBDT vide a special order?”

After considering the factual findings rendered by the Tribunal reproduced in para 4 of the said decision, the Hon’ble High Court held that where teaching services were rendered to assessee educational trust by faculty members of a foreign university and such services were utilized for purposes of trust's objective of imparting education, payment made by trust to foreign university for faculty teaching charges falls u/s. 11.

Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v. ITO [1999] 68 ITD 95 (Mumbai - Trib). The headnotes of the above decision reads as under: “The requirement under section 11 is for application of income for charitable purposes in India and its does Aditya Birla Education Trust not restrict the application of income within the territory of India. The charitable purpose for which the income should be applied for claiming exemption under section 11(1)(a) should be in India. In this case, the trade delegation had been sent abroad for the benefit of the entire trade in India. The exports were made from India and the purpose for sending the delegation was to increase the possibilities of exports out of India. Since the assessee had applied the income for charitable purposes in India, the mere fact that the expenditure had been incurred out of India, did not disqualify the expenditure from exemption under section 11(1)(a).”

ITO(E) v. J N Tata Endowment for Higher Education of Indians [2024] 166 taxmann.com 126 (Mumbai - Trib.) held that Disbursal of loan scholarships to students in India for study overseas was application of income for charitable purposes in India, and, thus, would qualify for exemption under section 11. b. Proposition 2: Incurring expenditure outside India is 'no bar' for denying approval/registration of modified objects of the assessee Trust.

Critical Art and Media Practices v. DIT(E) [2015] 153 ITD 664 (Mumbai Tribunal) held that If activities of a trust are found to be charitable and property is held wholly and Aditya Birla Education Trust exclusively under trust for charitable and religious purposes, then such a trust cannot be denied registration merely because its activities are extended outside India c. Proposition 3: Application of income outside India, can at worst, result in disentitling the assessee to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act to that extent, but it does not disentitle the assessee from getting approval/registration u/s. 12AB of the Act in respect of assessee’s modified objects.

Dedhia Music Foundation v. CIT (E) [2025] 173 taxmann.com 394 (Mumbai - Trib.) held that Application of income of a charitable trust or institution outside India for carrying out its objects would not fall under any categories of 'specified violation' as mentioned in Explanation to section 12AB(4) and, thus, Commissioner (Exemption) could not deny registration under section 12AB on said ground.

The Ld. AR argued that the trust deed dated September 07, 2013, which was subject matter of approval in 2021, provides in its object, inter alia, in clause 6(ii) which is reproduced as below:-

“To pay or utilize the balance of such interest dividends and income of the Trust Fund (hereinafter called "the net income of the Trust Fund" and in the discretion of the Trustees the corpus of the Trust Fund or any part of the corpus) for all or any one or more of the following charitable purposes in such shares and proportions and in such manner in all respects as the Trustees shall in their absolute discretion Aditya Birla Education Trust think fit whilst giving appropriate preference to deserving cases of Hindi Speaking students and/or students from Marwari community and otherwise without reference to caste, creed or religion…”.

“Provided however that the Trustees in their absolute discretion may give appropriate preference to deserving cases of Hindi Speaking students and / or students from Marwari community in the educational institutions established, conducted, controlled, managed and run by the Trust and otherwise carry out its objectives without reference to caste, creed or religion.”

Aditya Birla Education Trust 15. The Ld. AR further argued that the students of ABWA (FPB Pg 2349 – 2368) shows that students belonging to various religions, namely, Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Sikhism, Zoroastrian, Christianity and others are all enrolled and studying in the school run by the trust. It is therefore submitted that there is no valid reason for the Ld. CIT(E) to presume and allege that the activities of the trust are restricted are to particular religious community. A plain reading of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act which reads as under: - “13. (1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— … (b) in the case of a trust for charitable purposes or a charitable institution created or established after the commencement of this Act, any income thereof if the trust or institution is created or established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste;” (Emphasis supplied) 16. It is submitted that neither the trust deed nor the actual data of the trust anywhere indicates that the trust is established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. It was submitted to the Ld. CIT(E) in the course of proceedings that Marwari is not a religious community but primarily an ethnolinguistic/regional group. Even the Ld. CIT(E) is the said para has acknowledged that “Marwari does not represent any religious community,…”. Ld.AR argued that “Marwari” is itself is not a religion. Though majority Marwari’s may follow Hinduism, they also belong to other religions like Islam, Jainism, Aditya Birla Education Trust Christianity, Buddhism. Having regard to the above, application of section 13(1)(b) by the Ld. CIT(E) is grossly misplaced. It may not be out of place to mention that in the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(E) on dated 13/06/2025, FPB Pg 2172, a reference is made to Parsi and Irani Zoroastrians community in para 2 thereof. This indicates a possibility of the Ld. CIT(E) being coloured by some other case handled by him where Zoroastrianism is indeed a religion, but Marwari is not.

There is therefore no iota of doubt that the trust intends to carry on its activities entirely as permitted by the provisions of section 12 / 80G of the Act. Therefore, there is no justification in denying the registration.

Aditya Birla Education Trust 18. The allegation of the Ld. CIT(E) is that Marwari community represents people from a particular category and not public at large. In this behalf, the assessee most respectfully relies of the following decisions: a. Proposition 1: Advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of public as distinguished from an individual or group of individuals, is a charitable purpose. i. CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1973] 88 ITR 354 (Gujarat HC) (LPB Pg 7). The relevant extract of the decision reads as under: - “We must, therefore, proceed to examine the question before us in the light of the definition of "charitable purpose" in the Indian statute uninfluenced by considerations of English law on the subject. The question which we must ask ourselves is whether the purposes set out in sub-clauses (4) and (5) of clause 3 and sub-clause (4) of clause 8 are purposes which fall within the definition of "charitable purpose" given in the Indian statute. Now, admittedly, none of these purposes can be said to be for relief of the poor education or medical relief and, therefore, the only question would be whether they are purposes covered by the expression "advancement of any other object of general public utility". "General" means pertaining to a whole class; "public" means the body of people at Aditya Birla Education Trust large including any class of the public; "utility" means usefulness. Therefore, the advancement of any object of benefit to the public or a section of the public as distinguished from an individual or group of individuals) would be a charitable purpose. Applying this test, can it be said that the purposes set out in sub- clauses (4) and (5) of clause 3 and sub-clause (4) of clause 8 are charitable purposes. Are they purposes which are useful and beneficial to the Rana community or which promote the welfare of the Rana community? If they are, they would be objects of general public utility and would be covered by the statutory definition. So far as sub-clause (4) of clause 3 is concerned, there can be no doubt that it embodies an object of general public utility. It speaks of acts useful to the community and by its very terms, falls within the definition. When the object is to do acts beneficial to the community, it is plainly an object of general public utility.” ii. The above decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association [1983] 140 ITR 1 Aditya Birla Education Trust iii. CIT v. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat [2014] 364 ITR 31 (SC). The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: - “49. In the present case, the objects of the respondent- trust are based on religious tenets under Quran according to religious faith of Islam. We have already noticed that the perusal of the objects and purposes of the respondent-trust would clearly demonstrate that the activities of the trust though both charitable and religious are not exclusively meant for a particular religious community. The objects, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, do not channel the benefits to any community if not the Dawoodi Bohra Community and thus, would not fall under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act.

iv. Human Welfare Foundation v. DCIT(E) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 650 (Delhi - Trib.) (LPB Pg 22 - 50). The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced as under: -

“33. In view of the above discussion and by respectfully following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also looking to the facts that assessee society is providing education, medical facility, relief to poor as defined in section 2(15) of the Act which has not been doubted by the Ld. CIT(E) who merely for the reason that major beneficiaries are from a particular religious community has cancelled the registration, which is contrary to the facts of the present case as discussed above. The assessee society never intended to restrict the benefits to a particular religious community and the beneficiaries includes all the sections of the society irrespective of their casts and creed and, therefore, the action of the Ld. CIT(E) in withdrawing registration granted u/s 12A vide order dated 29.05.2009 w.e.f. AY 2018-19 and further registration granted in 12A(1)(ac) (i) of the Act w.e.f. AY 2022-23 is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(E) cancelling the registrations is set aside and registrations granted to the assessee earlier u/s 12A and later vide registration dated 23.09.2021 u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Act are restored. In the result, grounds of appeal Nos. 2 to 22 taken by the assessee are allowed.” b. Proposition 2: Violation of s. 13(1)(b) cannot be the basis for denial of approval/registration u/s. 12AB of the assessee's modified objects.

Gohilwad Vankar Samaj Seva Trust v. CIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 263 (Ahmedabad - Trib.). Held that “………………..

c. Proposition 3: Since the application was for approval/registration of assessee's modified objects, looking into s. 13(1)(b) compliance which in turn is linked with the entitlement of exemption u/s. 11, the same is beyond ld. CIT(E)'s jurisdiction, especially when the assessee enjoys a valid and subsisting registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

CIT(E) v. Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria [2024] 168 taxmann.com 35 (Gujarat HC).

“7. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, supported by decision of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Bayath Kutchhi Dasha Oswal Jain Mahajan Trust (2017) 8 IRT- OL 493 (GUJ)/[2016] 74 taxmann.com 199/243 Taxman 60 (Gujarat) that the objects of the trust are not wholly for the benefit of a particular religious community, but are largely charitable in character for general public at large and for the purpose of granting registration under 12A of the Act, the provision of section 13 (1) (b) cannot be referred to. Section 13(1) (b) is to be applied while granting exemption to the trust. In view of above finding, we do not find any question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration.”

Aditya Birla Education Trust 19. The Ld. AR argued that as regards training and development of employees of various companies, in para 4.2 of the impugned order, the Ld. CIT(E) respectfully relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Noble Education Society vs. CCIT (Civil Appeal No. 3795 of 2014) has held that the activity of the trust is not confined to “education”. In this behalf, it is submitted that the reference of training to teachers, parents and employees of various companies is intended to be part and parcel of and incidental to the educational activity of the trust. In any case, the exemption claimed by the assessee is u/s. 11 which permits various other charitable purposes including general public utility. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in New Noble Education Society (supra) was with reference to exemption u/s. 10(23C) which applies only in case of trust engaged “solely” for educational purposes. The Ld. AR stated that for both the above reasons, reliance of the ld. CIT(E) on the decision of Supreme Court in para 4.2 is misplaced.

Aditya Birla Education Trust 21. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and argued that the said order has been passed after detailed examination of the facts and correct application of the law. The Ld. DR argued that the assessee is not covered by section 11(1)(c) and hence expenses outside India are not permissible. The Ld. DR also stated that the benefit of charity should be available to public at large and reference to Marwari community goes against the object of serving public at large. The Ld. DR invited our attention in relevant paragraphs of the impugned order which are reproduced as below:-

“3. On verification of the application in Form 10AB filed by the applicant, it was found that the application was not complete, and all the documents required to be accompanying the application were not furnished. Hence, a notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025-26/1075455049(1) dated 03.04.2025 requesting the applicant to furnish the complete set of documents mentioned in Rule 17A(2). In response, the applicant trust has made submission vide letter dated15.04.2025. After a careful perusal of the submission, it is seen from the trust deed/MOA that as per point nos. 7(II) (A)(k) and 7(II)(A)(1)of the objects of the trust deed/MoA, the applicant intends to apply fund outside India. This is in violation of section 11 of the Income tax Act. The objects of the trust deed/MOA is reproduced below for reference:

• 7(II)(A)(k): To design, organize; manage, conduct and operate whether on its own or in association with other persons and/or organizations including overseas organizations; bodies; universities, educational institutions etc. programs, certifications, competitions including international competitions, workshops, seminars, webinars etc. including but not limited to education, training and development to teachers, parents, students, employees of various companies, Trusts, Societies and other institutions, • 7(II)(A)(I): To design, organize; manage, conduct and operate whether on its own or in association with other persons and/or organizations including overseas organizations; bodies, universities, educational institutions etc. developmental programs, workshops, Further, it is also seen that the trust intends to apply funds for a particular community or caste (students from the Marwari community). This is in violation of section 13(1)(b) of the Act and is also defined as specified violation as per clause (d) of Explanation to section 12AB(4) of the Act.

In view of this, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant vide DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM43/2025 -26/1077008067(1) dated 13.06.2025 and explanations were called for regarding the above-mentioned violations. Additionally, information regarding proof of expenses, copy of bank statements etc were called for vide the same notice dated submissionon20.06.2025 on 13.06.2025 in response, the applicant made subr TAX DEPA 25.06.2025.

3.1. The submission made by the applicant Trust is carefully perused. The relevant portion of applicant's reply dated 20.06.2025 with respect to violation of section 11 of the Act is reproduced in summarized as below:

“………………… 2.1.2 At the outset, the Assessee humbly states that it carries on various education programmes through its verticals / units as mentioned above. The said education programmes are carried in India. As such, the charitable activities are confined in India and none of the activities are carried outside India. For instance, Aditya Birla Education Academy ('ABEA') integrates international best practices with practical, school-based applications, ensuring that the educators remain at the forefront of educational innovation. By offering this comprehensive international programme, the Trust empower educators to adapt to global educational standards while addressing the unique needs of their local contexts.

……………….

Aditya Birla Education Trust 2.1.5: In view of the above, considering the educational objectives of the Trust in India, the Assessee is required to make payment to international institutions as well as mentors /trainers / organisations for the purpose of ensuring and promoting high level international standard quality education in India.

………………… 2.1.8: To this effect, the Clause 7(II)(A)(k) and Clause 7(II) (A)(I) enables and empowers the Trust to associate with these persons and/or overseas organisations for developmental programs, workshops, seminars and webinars for the benefit of schools and other educational institutions run by the Trust in India. In other words, these payments are for the charitable purposes in India."

4. Applicant's reply is neither satisfactory nor conclusive. The point no. 7(II)(A)(k) of the objects of the Trust deed i below: COME TAX DEPART visited and is reproduced below:

To design, organize, manage, conduct and operate whether on its own or in association with other persons and/or organizations including overseas organizations, bodies, universities, educational institutions etc. programs, certifications, competitions including international competitions, workshops, seminars, webinars etc. including but not limited to education training and development to teachers, parents, students, employees of various companies, Trusts, Societies and other institutions.

4.1. A careful perusal of above point will reveal that applicant Trust has consciously provisioned for activities other than Education which may be undertaken by it outside India by including the words "including but not limited to education". This implies that based on this object, the applicant Trust intends to undertake any activities other than Educational activities outside India which may not come under the purview or definition of Education.

4.2 Further, the object7(II)(A)(k) and 7(II)(A)(I) also include objectives of- i) training and development of employees of various companies, Trusts, Societies and other institutions and ii) developmental programs, workshops, seminars and webinars for the benefit of companies, organizations. Now, the training and development of employees of companies or other Aditya Birla Education Trust institutions and development programs for the benefit of companies cannot be categorized as Education in Scholastic sense. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee Lok Shikshana Trust, reported in 101 ITR 234 has clearly laid down that the scope of education within the meaning of section 2(15) is confined to formal education only, and does not extend to any wider connotation. The relevant findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court are as under The word "education" has not been used in that wide and extended sense, according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education...... What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling.

4.2.1 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S New Noble Educational Society vs The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (Civil Appeal No. 3795 OF 2014) has re-affirmed the view that in case of entities claiming exemption on the ground of imparting education, it has to be concerned "solely" with education or Education related activities; as under-

"60. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the interpretation adopted by the judgments in American Hotel (supra) as well as Queens Education Society (supra) as to the meaning of the expression 'solely' are erroneous. The trust or educational institution, which seeks approval or exemption, should solely be concerned with education, or education related activities. If, incidentally, while carrying on those objectives, the trust earns profits, it has to maintain separate books of account. It is only in those circumstances that 'business' income can be permitted- provided, as stated earlier, that the activity is education, or relating to education. The judgment in American Hotel (supra) as well as Queens Education Society (supra) do not state the correct law, and are accordingly overruled."

Thus, these objects of the Trust Deed are clearly in violation of section 2(15) of the Act, which defines the scope of charitable activities, including Education Courts have consistently taken a view that, for the purpose of section 2(15) Educational activities must be restricted to Scholastic education In the case of the applicant Trust, the objects clearly state that its activities will go beyond the boundaries of scholastic education in the form of educational training and Aditya Birla Education Trust development to employees of various companies, Trusts, Societies and other institutions and These activities cannot be regarded as charitable activities under Education, for the reasons discussed above.

Further, the applicant trust ought to have amended the clauses of the objects mentioned above which are in violation of the statutory provisions, as discussed above, however, the applicant has not considered it. The applicant has not presented/submitted any documentary evidence/proof of passing the resolution regarding amendment in trust deed nor has it provided any proof that it has initiated the process for amendment in trust deed/MoA before the competent authority.”

On Expenditure Outside India:

22.1. The assessee trust is imparting Cambridge and IB curriculum in India, and the foreign remittances are essentially for exam fees, subscriptions, and training of educators. all for the purpose of imparting education within India. Reliance placed by the Ld. CIT(E) on Section 11(1)(c) of the Act is misplaced, since the assessee claims exemption u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. The Ld. DR specifically relied on the fact that the assessee paid foreign remittance Rs. 6.5 crore to university outside India which gross violation of the Section 11 of the Act. We note that the assessee promotes advancement of educational institutional activities in all its branches such as kindergarten, primary, secondary and high school and colleges, both of Indian and international curriculum, leading up to and teaching degree Aditya Birla Education Trust courses in Arts, Science, Commerce, Law, Management, Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy, Music, Fine Arts, Architecture and such other educational subjects which are at large general public utility. We find that the payment to foreign education institution for expenses towards the charitable activities carried out in India cannot be disallowed. If such an interpretation is taken, then, no charitable hospital will be able to import any equipment, machinery or medicines from a foreign country. Considering, the National Education Policy, 2020 (supra) the students should get the knowledge in foreign education befitting for their future development. Jurisprudence Ohio University Christ College (supra), Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (supra), J.N. Tata Endowment (supra) and Dedhia Music Foundation (supra) clearly establishes that the activities carried out by the assessee 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. 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. We respectfully follow the orders mentioned above. Accordingly, it does not constitute violation of section 11 of the Act.

On “Marwari” Community Preference:

22.2. The trust deed merely provides discretion to give preference to deserving Hindi-speaking or Marwari students. This does not amount to restriction for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste u/s 13(1)(b). Marwari is not a religion but an ethnolinguistic/regional group, and the data on record shows Aditya Birla Education Trust that scholarships and admissions are widely given to students of varied religions and communities. 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (supra) and Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association (supra) has clarified that advancement of benefit to a section of public does not fall foul of section 13(1)(b). Respectfully, following the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court we find that the denial of registration on this ground is legally untenable.

On Scope of Educational Activities:

22.3. The ld. CIT(E) respectfully relied on the order of New Noble Educational Society (SC). We respectfully follow the said order which is distinguishable. As that ruling was under section 10(23C) of the Act which requires activity solely of education. Under section 11, charitable purposes include education and also general public utility. Training, workshops, and development programmes for teachers, parents, and even employees in mental health awareness, menstrual health, etc., are incidental and in alignment with National Education Policy, 2020. Hence, these cannot be a ground for denial of registration. At the stage of considering application for modification of objects u/s 12A(1)(ac)(v), the Ld. CIT(E) is only required to examine whether the amended objects are charitable. Detailed examination of application of income u/s 11 or violation u/s 13 is beyond the scope of such proceedings. Courts have consistently held in Critical Art and Media Practices (supra) and Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria (supra) that even if