DCIT(EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

ITA 7608/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 February 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing exemption under Section 11. It also directed that interest income accrued in an earlier year but received in the current year should be excluded to avoid double taxation, following a previous decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aditya Birla Foundation, a charitable trust, leased its hospital building to a related concern, Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. The Assessing Officer denied exemption under Section 11, alleging violation of Section 13 due to charging inadequate lease rent from a related party.

What were the issues?

Whether leasing property to a related concern at a rent determined by the District Valuation Officer violates Section 13, and whether interest income accrued in an earlier year but received in the current year should be taxed again.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 13,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(2)(a),Section 13(2)(b),Section 13(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. DR
Hearing: 28.01.2026Pronounced: 05.02.2026

PER BENCH: These are two appeals filed by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2016–17 and 2017–18 against the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since both appeals involve identical facts and a common issue relating to denial of exemption under section 11 on account of alleged violation of section 13 in respect of lease rent charged from a related concern, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Common Factual Background

2.

The assessee in both the a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 11

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →