AISHWARYA RAI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4329/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 August 2026AY 2026-275 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the 12AB registration was reversed by a coordinate bench, removing the sole basis for 80G rejection. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration of remaining 80G conditions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for approval under section 80G was rejected by the CIT(Exemptions) because its application for registration under section 12AB was rejected. The CIT(Exemptions) did not examine other conditions for 80G approval.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of 80G approval solely based on the rejection of 12AB registration is sustainable when the 12AB rejection has been overturned. Whether the CIT(Exemptions) should examine other conditions for 80G approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 12AB,Section 12A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Jain
For Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 24.07.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, in Form No. 10AD, rejecting the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB seeking approval under

2 ITA No. 4329/Mum/2026 Aishwarya Rai Foundation section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) has erred in rejecting the application made by the applicant for renewal of exemption u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. 3. The relevant facts are that the assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 30.09.2025 seeking approval under section 80G of the Act. The assessee had also filed, on the same date, a separate application in Form No. 10AB seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act, under sub-clause (ii) of clause (ac) of section 12A(1) of the Act. The said application for registration under section 12AB was rejected by the learned CIT(E).

4.

In the impugned order, the learned CIT(E) observed that section 80G(5)(i) requires that the institution or fund should be one to which sections 11 and 12, clause (23AA), or clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act applies. Since the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected, the learned CIT(E) held that the assessee did not fulfil the condition stipulated under section 80G(5)(i). On this sole basis, the application for approval under section 80G was held to be untenable and was rejected. The learned CIT(E) did not examine

3 ITA No. 4329/Mum/2026 Aishwarya Rai Foundation the assessee’s compliance with the other conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) of the Act. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the order rejecting the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB was challenged before the Tribunal in ITA No. 4328/Mum/2026 and the coordinate Bench, has heard the matter and indicated either to restore the matter to the file of learned CIT(E) or to direct to grant the registration. It was, therefore, submitted that the sole foundation upon which the application under section 80G had been rejected no longer survives and that the matter may be restored to the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. 6. The Departmental Representative raised no objection in restoring the matter back to the file of learned CIT(E). 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is undisputed that the assessee’s application for approval under section 80G was rejected solely because its corresponding application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected. The learned CIT(E) did not record any finding as regards the assessee’s compliance or otherwise with the remaining conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) of the Act. 8. We find that the coordinate Bench, in the assessee’s own case in ITA No. 4328/Mum/2026, has reversed the order

4 ITA No. 4329/Mum/2026 Aishwarya Rai Foundation rejecting registration under section 12AB and has issued the following categorical direction: “Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT (supra) and the decision of the Chennai Tribunal in the case of Sir C.V. Raman Educational & Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E) (supra), we direct the learned CIT(E) to grant registration u/s 12AB of the Act to the assessee-Trust.” 9. In view of the aforesaid decision, the very basis on which the assessee’s application under section 80G was rejected has ceased to exist. Once the coordinate Bench has directed the learned CIT(E) to grant registration under section 12AB, the rejection of the application under section 80G cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the assessee did not possess such registration. At the same time, since the learned CIT(E) has not examined the assessee’s compliance with the other statutory conditions prescribed under section 80G(5), it would not be appropriate for us to undertake such factual examination for the first time. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 and restore the assessee’s application in Form No. 10AB to the file of the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The learned CIT(E) shall proceed on the basis of the coordinate Bench’s direction to grant registration under section 12AB and shall not reconsider that concluded issue. The learned CIT(E) shall examine the assessee’s eligibility with reference to the remaining conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) and pass a reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The

5 ITA No. 4329/Mum/2026 Aishwarya Rai Foundation assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite particulars and extend due cooperation in the proceedings.

11.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19.08.2026 ANKIT, PS

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy// 1. उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →