COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. FLT LT RAJAN DHALL CHARITABLE TRUST REGD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, finding no perversity in its order. The tribunal had correctly noted that the Revenue failed to establish the activities were solely for the assessment year in question, and similar exemptions were allowed in earlier and subsequent years.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the ITAT's order granting exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued that the assessee's activities were commercial and not for a charitable purpose as defined in Section 2(15). The transfer of hospital management was also cited as a violation.
What were the issues?
Whether the activities of the assessee trust were for a charitable purpose and whether the transfer of hospital management violated Section 11 of the Act, considering the principle of consistency.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA No.137/2021
Page 1 of 3
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 137/2021
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
..... Appellant
Through Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing
Counsel.
versus
FLT LT RAJAN DHALL CHARITABLE TRUST REGD. ..... Respondent
Through None
Date of Decision: 07th February, 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
C.M.No.27246/2021
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. 1. The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing. ITA No.137/2021 2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 28th
August, 2019 passed by Delhi Bench 'B' of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 4257/De1/2016 for Assessment Year 2012-13. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000509
ITA No.137/2021
Page 2 of 3
Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in granting the exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 4. He submits that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the activities of the assessee are not the activities done for 'charitable purpose' according to the Section 2(15) of the Act, since they are of a purely commercial nature. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in overlooking the fact that the act of transfer of the management and control of Rajan Dhall Hospital, Vasant Kunj, Delhi vide 'Operational and Management Agreement with M/s Fortis Hospital Pvt. Ltd. existing absolutely for commercial purposes is violative of Section 11 of the Act. 6. Upon a perusal of the paper book, this Court finds that the Tribunal as the last fact finding authority has held that the Revenue had failed to establish that the said activities had been undertaken by the Respondent only in the Assessment Year under consideration. In fact, the said activities have been undertaken by the respondent right from the year 2007-08. 7. A perusal of the paper book also reveals that for the earlier and subsequent Assessment Years, exemptions have been allowed in the similar circumstances. 8. On 23rd August, 2021, this Court had observed that the impugned order passed by the ITAT suffers from no perversity as it abides by the principle of consistency and uniformity by following orders passed in the earlier and subsequent Assessment Years i.e. Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15. However, at that stage, learned counsel for the Appellant had prayed for some time to obtain This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000509
ITA No.137/2021
Page 3 of 3
instructions and file additional documents. 9. Though, learned counsel for the Appellant states that he has filed the additional documents, however, the same are not on record. In any event, in view of the principle of consistency and uniformity, this Court is of the view that no substantial questions of law arises for consideration in the present case. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed on the ground of consistency and uniformity.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2022 KA
This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000509
More judgments on Section 11
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 531/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Sweekar, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 1, Exemp, NagpurITA 530/NAG/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026