ASHOK BIRLA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER PER: MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 27.12.2025, passed by the

2 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], in Form No. 10AD. Since both the appeals arise from the applications filed by the same assessee and involve interconnected issues, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation 4. The Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application on the ground that the trust deed/ MOA contains clause regarding intention of application of income outside India without appreciating that no application has been made outside India and the clauses are merely enabling provisions and hence there stands no violation of section 11 of the Act. 5. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that application outside India cannot be made without approval of CBDT. Hence, mere existence of enabling clauses does not constitute violation of Section 11 of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing. 3.1. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.4524/Mum/2026 are:

4.1. The assesseefiled an application in Form No. 10AB on 27.06.2025 under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii), seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. The CIT(E) initially observed that the application was incomplete and that all the documents

4 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation prescribed under Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 had not been furnished. Accordingly, a notice dated 07.10.2025 was issued requiring the assessee to furnish the complete set of documents. In response thereto, the assessee furnished the requisite details and documents through the e-filing portal on 24.10.2025. 4.2. Upon examination of the financial statements and the Income and Expenditure Accounts for Assessment Years 2023- 24, 2024-25 and 2025-26, the CIT(E) observed that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure towards its objects or charitable activities during the said years. He, therefore, concluded that the assessee had failed to demonstrate that any charitable activity had been carried out and that the genuineness of its activities could not be established. The CIT(E) also recorded that the assessee had earlier been granted regular registration in Form No. 10AC dated 31.08.2021, valid from Assessment Year 2022-23 to Assessment Year 2026-27. 4.3. A show-cause notice dated 03.11.2025 was thereafter issued proposing rejection of the application on the ground that no activity had been carried out. The CIT(E) further observed that clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15) of the Trust Deed/Memorandum of Association contemplated affiliation with national or international institutions, participation in seminars and conferences at national and international levels, and imparting education in India and abroad. According to the CIT(E), these

5 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation clauses indicated an intention to apply funds outside India and were, therefore, in violation of section 11 of the Act. 4.4. After granting adjournments, the CIT(E) received the substantive reply of the assessee on 10.12.2025. The assessee explained that it had received voluntary donations which had been disclosed in its financial statements. It had also accrued interest income on deposits, but such interest had not actually been received. The assessee stated that it had filed Form No. 9A under clause (2) of Explanation 1 to section 11(1), opting to apply such income in the year of actual receipt. Since the income had not been realised, expenditure towards the charitable objects could not be undertaken, and the income would be deployed for charitable purposes upon its receipt. 4.5. As regards the clauses relating to activities outside India, the assessee explained that these were merely enabling clauses incorporated to provide flexibility for prospective academic, educational and research collaborations. The clauses did not mandate application of income outside India. It was specifically submitted that, since the inception of the assessee, no income had been applied outside India and no expenditure, remittance, donation, grant or activity had been undertaken outside India. 4.6. The CIT(E) did not accept the explanation. He held that mere evaluation of proposals, without actual implementation of

6 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation charitable activities or application of funds towards the objects, could not be regarded as carrying out charitable activities. According to him, the continued absence of charitable activity over multiple years reflected non-implementation of the stated objects. The CIT(E) further held that the wording of clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15) left open the possibility of expenditure outside India and that the assessee ought to have amended those clauses. 4.7. The CIT(E), therefore, concluded that he was unable to arrive at the requisite satisfaction regarding the objects, genuineness of activities and compliance with other applicable laws under section 12AB(1)(b). Accordingly, the application was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.12.2025. 4.8. The assessee also filed Form No. 10AB on 13.08.2025 seeking approval under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The CIT(E) noted that the application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected by a separate order dated 27.12.2025. Referring to section 80G(5)(i), the CIT(E) held that the assessee failed to satisfy the necessary condition in view of the rejection of registration under section 12AB. The application under section 80G was, therefore, treated as untenable and rejected. No independent examination of the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) was undertaken.

7 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(E), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned Authorised Representative [“AR”],reiterating the facts and grounds of appeal submitted that the CIT(E) had rejected the application principally on two grounds, namely, that the assessee had not incurred any expenditure towards its charitable objects during Assessment Years 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 and that clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15) of the Trust Deed/Memorandum of Association contemplated possible application of income outside India. It was contended that neither of these grounds was legally sustainable. 7. The learned AR submitted that the CIT(E) had not recorded any finding that the primary objects of the assessee were not charitable in nature. There was also no finding that the assessee had carried out any activity which was contrary to its stated objects. The mere fact that the assessee had not commenced its charitable activities or had not incurred expenditure towards such activities could not be equated with non-genuineness of its activities. 8. The learned AR referred to the explanation furnished before the CIT(E) that the assessee had received voluntary donations duly reflected in its financial statements and had also accrued interest income on deposits. The accrued interest had not actually been received during the relevant financial year.

8 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation Consequently, the assessee had filed Form No. 9A under clause (2) of Explanation 1 to section 11(1), opting to apply such income in the year of its actual receipt. Since the income had not been realised, the assessee could not incur expenditure towards its charitable objects during the relevant period. It was submitted that the assessee intended to deploy the income towards its charitable objects immediately upon receipt. 9. The learned AR contended that the scope of enquiry at the stage of registration was confined to examining whether the objects were genuinely charitable and whether the actual or proposed activities were in consonance with such objects. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. CIT [2020] 114 taxmann.com 693/[2020] 272 Taxman 7/[2020] 426 ITR 340 (SC). 10. The learned AR also relied upon Ujwal Foundation v. CIT(E) [2025] 175 taxmann.com 276 (Hyderabad-Trib.), wherein it was held that where the charitable activities had not commenced, the proposed activities were required to be considered and non-commencement of activities could not be the sole reason for denying registration. Reliance was further placed upon the order of the Delhi Bench in Bajaj Auto Charitable Trust v. CIT(E), ITA No.724/Del/2025, dated 26.02.2026,

9 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation 11. Adverting to the second objection of the CIT(E), the learned AR submitted that clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15) were merely enabling clauses. Clause III(12) permitted affiliation and cooperation with national or international institutions, clause III(14) permitted participation in seminars, conferences, research and training at national and international levels, and clause III(15) contemplated imparting education in India and abroad. These clauses neither mandated nor necessarily involved application of the assessee’s income outside India. 12. The learned AR submitted that, since the inception of the assessee, no income had been applied outside India. No expenditure, remittance, donation, grant or activity of any nature had been undertaken outside India. The rejection was thus founded merely upon the apprehension that the assessee might, at some future point, incur expenditure outside India. It was contended that registration could not be denied on the basis of a hypothetical future possibility. 13. It was further submitted that any actual application of income outside India, if made without the requisite approval, could be examined while determining the exemption admissible under section 11 for the relevant assessment year. Such application might affect the availability of exemption in respect of the amount so applied, but it would not render the objects or activities of the assessee non-genuine and could not constitute a ground for rejecting registration under section 12AB.In support of

10 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation the aforesaid proposition, reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT(E) v. Manekji Mota Charitable Trust [2019] 109 taxmann.com 258/[2019] 267 Taxman 16 (Bom.) . The learned AR pointed out that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin CIT(E) v. Manekji Mota Charitable Trust [2020] 120 taxmann.com 58/[2020] 274 Taxman 378 (SC). 14. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in Dedhia Music Foundation v. CIT(E) [2025] 173 taxmann.com 394 (Mumbai-Trib.). The learned AR further relied uponTIH Foundation for IOT and IOE v. CIT(E) [2025] 176 taxmann.com 561 (Mumbai-Trib.) and Shamkris Charity Foundation v. CIT(E) [2025] 180 taxmann.com 58 (Mumbai- Trib.). 15. The learned AR accordingly submitted that both the reasons assigned by the CIT(E) for rejecting the application under section 12AB were contrary to the settled legal position. It was prayed that the impugned order dated 27.12.2025 be set aside and the CIT(E) be directed to grant registration to the assessee under section 12AB of the Act. 16. The learned AR thereafter addressing the appealconcerning approval under section 80G submitted that the CIT(E) had

11 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation rejected the application under section 80G solely on the ground that the assessee’s application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected through a separate order of the same date. The CIT(E) had not undertaken any independent examination of the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) of the Act.The learned AR contended that the order under section 80G was entirely consequential to the order rejecting registration under section 12AB. Once the rejection of registration under section 12AB was set aside, the sole foundation of the order passed under section 80G would cease to exist. 17. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative [“DR”] relied upon the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) and supported the conclusions recorded therein in both the appeals. 18. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The controversy in ITA No.2500/Mum/2026 lies in a narrow compass. The CIT(E) rejected the application for registration under section 12AB principally for two reasons. First, the assessee had not incurred any expenditure towards its charitable objects during Assessment Years 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26 and, therefore, according to the CIT(E), the genuineness of its activities could not be established. Secondly, clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15) of the Trust Deed/Memorandum of Association contemplated affiliation and cooperation with international institutions, participation in activities at international levels and imparting education in India

12 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation and abroad. According to the CIT(E), these clauses indicated an intention to apply income outside India in violation of section 11 of the Act. 19. Under section 12AB(1)(b), the CIT(E) is empowered to call for such documents or information and make such enquiries as he considers necessary to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution and its compliance with such requirements of any other law for the time being in force as are material for achieving its objects. After making such enquiry, the CIT(E) is required to satisfy himself about the objects, genuineness of the activities and compliance with the applicable requirements of any other law. The power of enquiry is substantive, but it must be exercised within the parameters prescribed by the provision. Non-commencement of activities or non-incurring of expenditure cannot, without anything further, be treated as conclusive evidence that the proposed activities are not genuine. 20. The legal position concerning non-commencement of activities is authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ananda Social and Educational Trust v. CIT(supra). In paragraph 5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there was no statutory stipulation that a trust should have undertaken activities before applying for registration. Paragraph 5 reads as under:

13 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation “5. The above section provides for registration of a trust. Such registration can be applied for by a trust which has been in existence for some time and also by a newly registered trust. There is no stipulation that the trust should have already been in existence and should have undertaken any activities before making the application for registration.” 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter explained the scope of the expression “activities” in paragraph 12 as under:

“12. Since section 12AA pertains to the registration of the Trust and not to assess of what a trust has actually done, we are of the view that the term „activities‟ in the provision includes „proposed activities‟. That is to say, a Commissioner is bound to consider whether the objects of the Trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. In contrast, the position would be different where the Commissioner proposes to cancel the registration of a Trust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act. There the Commissioner would be bound to record the finding that an activity or activities actually carried on by the Trust are not genuine being not in accordance with the objects of the Trust. Similarly, the situation would be different where the trust has before applying for registration found to have undertaken activities contrary to the objects of the Trust.” 22. More significantly the trust had not spent any part of its income on charitable activities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between not carrying out the objects and carrying out activities contrary to the objects. Paragraph 21 reads as under:

“21. In the present case, what has been found is that the Trust had not spent any amount of its income for charitable purposes. This is a case of not carrying out the objects of the Trust and not carrying on activities contrary to its object. These circumstances may arise for many reasons including not finding suitable circumstances for carrying

14 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation on activities. Undoubtedly the inaction in carrying out charitable purposes might also become actionable depending on other circumstances; but we are not concerned with such a case here.” 23. The ratio emerging from the aforesaid decision is that absence of expenditure or non-commencement of activities does not, by itself, establish that the activities are not genuine. Where no activity has commenced, the competent authority has to examine whether the proposed activities are charitable and whether they are in conformity with the stated objects. A different consequence may follow where activities have actually been carried out contrary to the objects or where prolonged inaction is accompanied by other circumstances demonstrating that the trust is not genuinely constituted for charitable purposes. No such finding has been recorded in the present case.

“Thus, it is clear from the above findings of the learned CIT(E) that he has not disputed the charitable nature of the objects of the assessee trust, but the registration was denied only on the ground that no substantial charitable activities are being carried out by the assessee

15 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation trust. It is pertinent to note that if the assessee trust has not started/commenced its charitable activities, then the proposed activities are to be considered for satisfying itself by the competent authority while granting registration u/s 12AB of the Act.” 25. The Co-ordinate Bench further held in paragraph 7 as under:

“If the activities are yet to be commenced, then it cannot be the case of the activities are not genuine. If the proposed activities of the assessee trust are to achieve its objects, which are accepted as charitable in nature, then non commencement of the activities at the time of filing the application or at the time of passing the order for grant of registration u/s 12AB cannot be a sole reason for denial of registration without considering the proposed activities of the assessee.” 26. A similar view was taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in Bajaj Auto Charitable Trust v. CIT(E), ITA No.724/Del/2025, order dated 26.02.2026. After examining the objects, accounts, bank statements and donation details, the Tribunal observed in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:

“10. All these aspects have been left out of consideration by the competent authority to and laid more emphasis on lack of activities, which at this stage are not much relevant and cannot be basis for denial of the registration. In the light of aforesaid circumstances we are of the considered view that it is an appropriate case that the assessee should be granted registration. 11. Accordingly, grounds are allowed. The appeal of assessee is sustained and the impugned order is set aside and directions are issued to the competent authority to allow the Form 10AB of the applicant.” 27. Reverting to the facts before us, the CIT(E) recorded that no expenditure had been incurred towards charitable activities for

16 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation Assessment Years 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. However, he did not identify any activity actually carried out by the assessee which was contrary to its objects. Apart from the objection regarding the clauses concerning international affiliation and activities, which we deal with hereinafter, there is no finding that the stated objects were not charitable. There is also no finding that the assessee had diverted its funds towards any non- charitable purpose or had undertaken any activity inconsistent with its objects. 28. The assessee had explained before the CIT(E) that interest income had accrued but had not actually been received and that it had furnished Form No. 9A under clause (2) of Explanation 1 to section 11(1), opting to apply the income in the year of actual receipt. Whether the conditions governing deemed application of income are ultimately satisfied is a matter to be considered in the relevant assessment proceedings. It does not follow from the mere absence of expenditure that the proposed activities of the assessee are not genuine. The CIT(E), therefore, erred in treating the absence of expenditure as equivalent to non-genuineness of activities. 29. We next consider the objection concerning clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15). Clause III(12) enables the assessee to affiliate, cooperate or enter into agreements with national or international institutions and persons. Clause III(14) permits the assessee to organise or participate in seminars, conferences, research,

17 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation studies and training at national and international levels. Clause III(15) contemplates imparting education in India and abroad. These clauses are enabling in character. The CIT(E) has not brought on record any instance of actual expenditure, remittance, donation, grant or application of income outside India. The rejection is founded upon an apprehension that the clauses may enable the assessee to incur expenditure outside India in future.

“(c) In appeal, the Tribunal in the impugned order noted the fact that at the time of registration of the Trust, the question of application of income of the Trust is premature. These are issues which are appropriately dealt with during the assessment proceedings while considering the application of Section 11 of the Act. Thus, allowed the appeal. (d) We note that undisputedly 71%of the receipts of the Trust are being spent in accordance with its objects. Therefore, this itself would establish that the Trust is in existence. A partial expenditure which is not authorized by the Trust would not be itself lead to the Trust becoming non-genuine. The consequence would be that the benefit of Section 11 of the Act will not be available to that extent. At the stage of registration, this issue is premature.” 31. Thus, the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court has held that the question of allowability of exemption in respect of a particular application of income is appropriately examined during assessment

18 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation proceedings and that an application of income which may not qualify for exemption does not, by itself, render the trust non- genuine. The Special Leave Petition preferred by the Revenue against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT(E) v. Manekji Mota Charitable Trust [2020] 120 taxmann.com 58/[2020] 274 Taxman 378 (SC).

“12.1. It may be noticed that clauses (a),(c),(d) and (e) would be attracted only when there is application of income as mentioned in those clauses. Hence „actual application of income‟ is the condition to be satisfied for attracting the above said four clauses. 13. In our view, the provisions of sec.11(1) would not fall under the category of „any other law‟, since it is only a computation provision. The provisions of sec.11(1) do not require the charitable trust or institution to comply with any requirements, which are essential to achieve the objects of the trust. Further provisions of sec.11(1) do not state that the application of income derived from property held under trust for activities carried outside India results in violation of any law. Sec. 11 only states that the exemption under that section is restricted to income applied for charitable purposes in India, i.e., it does not permit exemption of income applied outside India. Hence income, if any, applied for objects outside India cannot be construed to be

19 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation violation of „any other law‟ falling within the meaning of clause (f) of Explanation to sec. 12AB(4) of the Act. 14. The foregoing discussions would show that the application of income of a charitable trust or institution outside India for carrying out its objects will not fall under any of the categories of „specified violation‟ as mentioned in the Explanation to sec.12AB(4) of the Act. Hence, the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of M.K. NambyarSaarf Law Charitable Trust v. Union of India [2004] 140 Taxman 616/269 ITR 556 (Delhi) will apply to the provisions of sec.12AB of the Act also, since the provisions of sec.12AB also do not refer to the activities carried in India or outside India. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be concluded that existence of any object for carrying out any activity outside India will not enable the Ld CIT(E) to deny registration u/s 12AB of the Act. As observed earlier, such kind of application of income outside India (unless it is permitted by the CBDT) will not be exempted u/s 11 of the Act.” 33. The Co-ordinate Bench also examined the language of the object clause in that case and held in paragraph 16 that an apprehension of possible future expenditure outside India was insufficient. The relevant portion reads as under:

“It nowhere states that the income of the charitable trust or institution shall be applied outside India. Even if it is applied outside India, then the assessee, subject to sec. 11(c) of the Act, would not get exemption of the income so applied u/s 11 of the Act. Hence the Ld CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application of the on apprehension entertained by him.” 34. Although the analysis in Dedhia Music Foundation (supra) referred to the specified violations under section 12AB(4), its ratio was expressly applied to an application for continuation of registration under section 12AB(1)(b) by the Co-ordinate Bench in

20 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation TIH Foundation for IOT and IOE v. CIT(E) [2025] 176 taxmann.com 561 (Mumbai-Trib.). The relevant findings in paragraph 9 read as under:

“The only basis for rejection of registration by the Commissioner (Exemption) is the possibility of the assessee incurring expenditure outside India in furtherance of its objects, which, according to the Commissioner (Exemption), contravenes the provisions of section 11. However, such reasoning does not find support either in the statutory scheme of section 12AB or in judicial precedents.” 35. The Bench further held:

“The Tribunal concluded that unless and until the income is actually applied outside India in violation of the conditions of section 11, it cannot be construed as a ground for cancellation or denial of registration under section 12AB. Moreover, the application of income outside India, even if made, would only affect the exemption under section 11(1), but cannot be construed as a contravention of law attracting rejection of registration.” 36. On the facts before it, the Bench found that neither any impermissible application of income had been undertaken nor had the CIT(E) identified a specific violation under section 12AB(1)(b) or the Explanation to section 12AB(4). It accordingly directed grant of registration. The operative portion of paragraph 9 reads as under:

“In the present case, the assessee has neither undertaken any impermissible application of income nor has the Commissioner (Exemption) brought on record any specific violation of conditions prescribed under section 12AB(1)(b) or Explanation to section 12AB(4).” 37. The view taken in Dedhia Music Foundation and TIH Foundation for IOT and IOE was subsequently followed by the

21 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation Co-ordinate Bench in Shamkris Charity Foundation v. CIT(E) [2025] 180 taxmann.com 58 (Mumbai-Trib.). After considering the enabling clause for application of funds outside India, the Bench directed the CIT(E) in paragraph 8 as under: “8. Accordingly we direct the CIT(E) to keep in mind the ratio laid down by the decision of the coordinate bench in the above case while considering the application of the assessee for final registration on merits. It is ordered accordingly.” 38. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid decisions is that the place of application of income and the eligibility of such application for exemption under section 11 are distinct from the genuineness of the charitable objects and activities at the registration stage. If income is actually applied outside India without satisfying the conditions of section 11(1)(c), the exemption in respect of such income may not be available. However, the possible tax consequence of a future application of income does not render an enabling object clause non-charitable and does not, by itself, constitute non-compliance with “any other law” contemplated by section 12AB(1)(b). 39. In the present case, clauses III(12), III(14) and III(15) do not mandatorily require the assessee to apply its income outside India. Clauses permitting affiliation with international institutions or participation in activities at an international level do not necessarily result in application of income outside India. Even clause III(15), which refers to imparting education in India and abroad, is an enabling clause. The CIT(E) has not recorded

22 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation any instance of actual application of income outside India. The requirement imposed by the CIT(E) that the assessee ought to amend these clauses is, therefore, founded on an apprehension of a possible future event rather than an existing statutory violation. 40. We also note that the assessee had earlier been granted registration in Form No. 10AC dated 31.08.2021, valid from Assessment Year 2022-23 to Assessment Year 2026-27. The impugned order does not record that any activity undertaken during the subsistence of the earlier registration was non-genuine or contrary to the stated objects. The CIT(E) received the requisite documents in response to the notice dated 07.10.2025 and the application was not ultimately rejected for any outstanding deficiency in the prescribed documents. Thus, the two substantive grounds recorded in the impugned order stand covered by the judicial principles discussed above. 41. In view of the binding ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ananda Social and Educational Trust (supra), the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Manekji Mota Charitable Trust (supra), and the consistent view of the Co- ordinate Benches in Dedhia Music Foundation, Ujwal Foundation, TIH Foundation for IOT and IOE and Shamkris Charity Foundation, we hold that neither the absence of expenditure during the relevant years nor the existence of the enabling clauses relating to possible activities outside India

23 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation constituted a valid ground for rejection of registration under section 12AB. 42. Since the CIT(E) had examined the application, received the requisite documents and rejected it only on the aforesaid two grounds, no useful purpose would be served by restoring the registration application for reconsideration on the same issues. We accordingly set aside the order dated 27.12.2025 and direct the CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee under section 12AB for the period permissible under the applicable statutory provisions. The CIT(E) shall determine the applicable period of registration in accordance with law. 43. Grounds raised in ITA No.2500/Mum/2026 are accordingly allowed. 44. We now take up ITA No.4524/Mum/2026 concerning approval under section 80G. The impugned order records that the assessee filed Form No. 10AB on 13.08.2025 under clause (ii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). The CIT(E) rejected the application solely because the application for registration under section 12AB had been rejected by the separate order dated 27.12.2025. The conditions prescribed under section 80G(5) were not independently examined. 45. Since, we have set aside the order rejecting registration under section 12AB and directed grant of registration. Consequently, the sole foundation of the order rejecting approval

24 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation under section 80G no longer survives. However, since the CIT(E) has not independently examined the conditions prescribed under section 80G(5), it would not be appropriate for us to record first- instance satisfaction regarding those conditions. 46. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 27.12.2025 rejecting the application under section 80G and restore the application to the file of the CIT(E) for examination afresh. The CIT(E) shall not reject the application on the ground that registration under section 12AB has been denied. He shall independently examine the remaining statutory conditions under section 80G(5), consider the material furnished by the assessee and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after affording an effective opportunity of hearing. 47. The grounds raised in ITA No.4524/Mum/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. 48. In the result, ITA No.2500/Mum/2026 is allowed, whereas ITA No.4524/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 27.08.2026 ANKIT, PS

25 ITA No. 2500 & 4524/Mum/2026 Ashok Birla Foundation

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