SHRI VIRJI LADHABHAI KDO JAIN VIDHYARTHI GRIHA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6430/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 September 20268 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that once the jurisdictional High Court has authoritatively settled an issue, authorities are bound by it. Special conditions making the grant of registration and approval contingent on a proposed future appeal are legally unsustainable and cannot be imposed.

What were the facts?

The assessee was granted registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5) with special conditions. These conditions made the registration and approval contingent on the outcome of a proposed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, despite a favorable judgment from the jurisdictional High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(E) can impose conditions on registration/approval that make them contingent on the outcome of a proposed Supreme Court appeal, despite a binding High Court judgment. Whether the absence of an express irrevocability clause in a trust deed is a valid ground for rejecting registration under section 12AB.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘F’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya
Hearing: 09/09/2026Pronounced: 10/09/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (JM):

The aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, granting renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval

2 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee, arise from the same factual background and involve an identical issue, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2.

The grievance of the assessee is confined to the special conditions incorporated by the learned CIT(E) while granting the aforesaid registration and approval. In the order granting registration under section 12AB, condition No. 15 records that the instrument of trust does not contain an express clause declaring that the transfer of the trust property is irrevocable for all times. The learned CIT(E), after referring to section 332(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and noticing the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. CIT(E), Writ Petition (L) No. 7587 of 2026, reported in [2026] 184 taxmann.com 374 (Bom), has observed that the Revenue proposes to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, while granting registration in compliance with the aforesaid judgment, the learned CIT(E) has made its applicability and the consequential tax benefits with effect from 01.04.2026 subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. An identical qualification has been incorporated as condition No. 5 in the order granting approval under section 80G(5).

3 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that once the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has authoritatively decided the issue, the learned CIT(E) was bound to give complete effect to the judgment and could not render the registration or its consequential benefits contingent upon the outcome of a proposed proceeding before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was further submitted that there is neither any order staying the operation of the judgment nor any subsequent decision modifying or reversing the law declared therein. The impugned conditions, therefore, introduce an uncertainty contrary to the binding judicial mandate and materially prejudice the assessee notwithstanding the formal grant of registration and approval.

4.

The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, relied upon the impugned orders and submitted that registration and approval have, in fact, been granted to the assessee and the impugned conditions merely safeguard the interest of the Revenue in the event of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court being interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material placed on record. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether, after granting registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G(5) in

4 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha conformity with a binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, the learned CIT(E) could nevertheless make their operation and the consequential statutory benefits subject to the outcome of a proposed Special Leave Petition. The question regarding absence of an express irrevocability clause in the instrument of trust now stands authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E) (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has held that a public charitable trust is irrevocable by operation of law unless the instrument governing it expressly reserves a power of revocation. There is a material distinction between the trust being irrevocable in law and the trust deed containing an express declaration of irrevocability. Mere silence of the instrument does not make the trust revocable; revocability must flow from a positive stipulation enabling re-transfer of the trust property or reassumption of power over it by the transferor within the meaning of sections 60 to 63 of the Act. It has further been held that absence of an express irrevocability or dissolution clause cannot constitute a ground for rejecting an application for registration or renewal under section 12AB. The Hon’ble High Court, while considering section 332(2)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 2025, has also clarified that the statutory requirement is that the property should be held under an irrevocable trust and not that the instrument must invariably

5 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha contain a separately worded clause declaring such irrevocability.

6.

Once the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has declared the law on the issue, every authority functioning within its territorial jurisdiction is bound to give effect to it in letter as well as in substance. The binding force of the judgment cannot be kept in suspended animation merely because the Revenue proposes to assail it before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Unless the operation of the judgment is stayed, or the judgment itself is reversed or modified by a superior court, it continues to hold the field and has to be implemented without qualification. The learned CIT(E), therefore, could not have professed compliance with the judgment and, at the same time, appended a condition which renders the relief flowing therefrom uncertain and contingent. A proposed challenge, which had not even fructified into any contrary judicial order, furnishes no legal basis for restricting a statutory benefit otherwise available under the law as it presently stands. Needless to say, any consequence flowing from a future judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would operate in accordance with the terms of that judgment and the law applicable at the relevant time; however, such an uncertain future event cannot be converted into a present fetter upon the registration and approval validly granted to the assessee.

6 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha 7. Even otherwise, the statutory scheme contains adequate safeguards wherever the prescribed conditions are violated. Registration under section 12AB does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible exemption for every assessment year, for the actual claim of exemption remains open to examination by the Assessing Officer under sections 11 to 13 and other applicable provisions of the Act. Likewise, the provisions governing specified violations, cancellation of registration and taxation of accreted income continue to apply whenever their statutory conditions are attracted. Thus, the interest of the Revenue is sufficiently protected by the statute itself and cannot justify engrafting upon the registration or approval a condition which neither emanates from the enactment nor accords with the binding declaration of law by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court.

8.

Accordingly, in ITA No. 6431/Mum/2026, condition No. 15 incorporated in the order granting registration under section 12AB, insofar as it makes the applicability of the registration and the consequential tax benefits with effect from 01.04.2026 subject to the outcome of the proposed proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is legally unsustainable and is hereby expunged. Likewise, in ITA No. 6430/Mum/2026, condition No. 5 incorporated in the order granting approval under section 80G(5), making the approval and its consequential benefits subject to the outcome of the

7 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha proposed proceedings, is also expunged. The learned CIT(E) is directed to issue suitably modified orders/certificates under section 12AB and section 80G(5) after deleting the aforesaid qualifications. The registration and approval shall operate in accordance with their respective terms and the law presently in force, subject to the remaining lawful conditions and the applicable provisions of the Act.

9.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above.

Order pronounced in open Court on 10th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT (AMIT SHUKLA) MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/09/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

8 ITA Nos. 6430 & 6431/Mum/2026 Shri Virji Ladhabhai KDO Jain Vidhyarthi Griha Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →