“Section 13(2)(a)”

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging to the trust had been made available ... after considering the assessment orders and the submissions of the assessee, held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3) of the Act. He recorded a finding that Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. could not be regarded as a concern

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & Dcit(Exemption)-1(1), Aditya Birla 6Th Floor, Mtnl Foundation, Building, Pedder Road, Vs. C-1, Aditya Birla Cumballa Hills, Centre, S. K. Mumbai-400 026 Ahiremarg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaata0382P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ronak Doshi & Shri Surajsingh Devda, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.02.2026

statute. 8. The Assessing Officer, in both the years, held that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) and (b) of the Act on the ground that the hospital building and staff quarters belonging to the trust had been made available ... after considering the assessment orders and the submissions of the assessee, held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(2)(b) read with section 13(3) of the Act. He recorded a finding that Aditya Birla Health Services Ltd. could not be regarded as a concern

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee has violated provisions of section 13(2)(a) of the Act by advancing loan to K. R. Foundation wherein the trustee of the assessee trust is also trustee of K. R. Foundation? 2. Whether on facts ... indirect benefit taken through specified persons as per the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, is a clear violation of section 13(2)(h) of the Act, therefore the JAO was justified in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 4. As could

LAXMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEM CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

substantial\nshares (conjointly more than 20%), the assessee has violated the provisions\nof section 13(3) read with section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act.\nAccordingly, the AO held that the assessee is not eligible for exemption under\nsection 11 and, therefore, the claim ... ncase which falls within the four corners of section 13 is the denial of\nexemption under section 11 of the Act. Section 13(2)(a) of the Act also\ndoes not authorise the Revenue to compute the notional interest, in\ncase no such interest is charged by the trust. Thus

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

fact where the funds of the trust were diverted and used for the benefit of excluded person are covered within the provision of section 13(2)(b) and 13(2)(g)? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA ... where the rents paid for premise and was diverted and used for the benefit of excluded person are covered within the provision of section 13(2)(a)? 4. Without prejudice to the above substantial question of law, whether on facts and circumstances of the case

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPITONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Masina Hospital Trust, Cit(Exemptions), 1 Masina Hospital, Sant Satva Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Vs. Marg, Byculla, Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Mumbai-400027. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatm 0786 D Appellant Respondent

intention to trust with intention to earn interest income, t n interest income, therefore, the transaction was was in violation of provision of section 13(2)(a) of the provision of section 13(2)(a) of the Act. (ii) The assessee trust was having assessee trust was having ... record. The first issue in dispute is . The first issue in dispute is regarding the violation of section 1 regarding the violation of section 13(2) of the Act which prescribe 3(2) of the Act which prescribe that where any property where any property or income of the trust