COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS DELHI vs. BALAJI MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 430 / 2023HC Delhi07 August 20233 pages
For Petitioner: ABHISHEK
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The court noted that the service agreement, crucial for the appeal, was not on record and directed the revenue to produce it. The appeal was adjourned for further hearing.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning exemption under Section 11 for AY 2014-15. The assessee, a medical research center registered under Section 12A, claimed charitable activity. The AO denied exemption due to a service agreement with another entity.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, considering its service agreement with another entity. The availability and relevance of the service agreement for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 430/2023

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS DELHI

..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Akshat Singh, Standing Counsel.

versus

BALAJI MEDICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH CENTRE

..... Respondent Through: Mr Neeraj Jain with Mr Aniket D. Agrawal, Ms Manisha Sharma, and Mr Abhisek Singhvi, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R %

07.08.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM No.39889/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 71 days in filing the appeal] CM No.39890/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. These are applications filed by the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 71 days in filing and 200 days in re-filing the appeal. ITA 430/2023

page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:13:22

3.

Counsel for the respondent/assessee says that he would have no objection if the delay is condoned. 4. Accordingly, the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 430/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 7. Via this appeal, the appellant/revenue impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] dated 08.02.2022. 8. Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the only question which arises for consideration is: whether the respondent/assessee ought to have been allowed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”]? 8.1 The respondent/assessee claims that it is carrying out charitable activity. The respondent/assessee further claims that it falls within the ambit of Section 2(15) of the Act, as providing medical facilities falls within the scope of charitable activity. 9. The record shows that the respondent/assessee has been granted registration under Section 12A of the Act. 10. The respondent/assessee evidently filed a Return of Income (RoI) for the AY in issue, on 30.09.2014, wherein it declared its income as “NIL”. 11. The Assessing Officer (AO), however, concluded that the respondent/assessee was not entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act, for the reason that it had executed a service agreement with Max ITA 430/2023

page 2 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:13:22

Health Care Institute Ltd. [hereafter referred to as, “MHCIL”]. 12. According to the counsel for the respondent/assessee, every aspect concerning the management and operations was carried out with the assistance of MHCIL. 13. Unfortunately, the service agreement has not been placed on record by the appellant/revenue. 14. Mr Maratha says that the service agreement and all the relevant records necessary for the progress of the appeal, will be placed on record within the next two weeks. 15. At Mr Maratha’s request, list the appeal on 22.09.2023. 16. In the meanwhile, counsel for the parties will file their written submissions, not exceeding three pages each, at least five days before the next date of hearing.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

AUGUST 7, 2023 / tr

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

ITA 430/2023

page 3 of 3

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 13:13:22

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →