TAMAASHA STUDIO FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

(Assessment Year: 2025-26) Tamaasha Studio Foundation Commissioner of Income Tax Plot-249, Flat 205, 2nd Floor, C Wing, (Exemption), Mumbai Gandhi Indra Prastha Regency CHSL, Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 104. PAN/GIR No. AAJCT5140Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(E)’ for short), in rejecting the assessee’s application seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act.

1. The learned CIT-(E), Mumbai has erred in rejecting application of the appellant trust filed u/s 12A(1)(ac) of the Act without appreciating that the said action was not justified on facts and in law.

2. The ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate the clerical error committed in selecting appropriate head in drop down list provided in e-filing portal while furnishing Form 10AB electronically cannot lead to denial of registration, more particularly, on the fact that appellant is fulfilling all the conditions provided u/s 12A for becoming eligible to obtain registration.

(A.Y. 2025-26) Tamaasha Studio Foundation 3. Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the appellant respectfully submits that the learned CIT(E), Mumbai has erred both in fact and in law in rejecting the appellant trust's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground that the object clause in the trust deed/Memorandum of Association (MOA) indicates an intention to apply funds outside India without appreciating that such an observation is misconceived, as the existence of a general object clause indicating possible activities outside India does not, in itself, amount to a violation of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act calling for rejection of the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act, particularly when no such expenditure has actually been incurred, nor any such application of income has taken place.

4. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the appellant submits that the learned CIT(E), Mumbai erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the consideration of an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be confined to the present and actual objects and activities of the trust, and not influenced by hypothetical apprehensions of future violations, and that the mere existence of an object clause in the trust deed or MoA suggesting a possible application of funds outside India cannot, in the absence of any actual such application, be deemed a contravention of Section 11 and contrary to the statutory scheme which envisages that eligibility for exemption under Section 11 is to be examined annually at the stage of assessment based on real facts and conduct rather than at the stage of initial registration.”