RELIANCE FOUNDATION INSTITUTION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 3801/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 June 202613 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Reliance Foundation Institution of Education and Research, filed appeals against two orders dated 29.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai. These orders rejected the assessee's applications for renewal of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2027-28 to 2031-32. The assessee, established to carry on charitable activities in education, had previously obtained registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G. Following amendments to the law, it obtained fresh registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G, valid until 31.03.2026. Subsequently, it amended its objects and obtained approval in Form No.10AD on 18.04.2024. It then filed applications for renewal of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under section 80G.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the renewal of registration under section 12AB was unsustainable on facts and in law. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed an application under section 12A(1)(ac)(v) after amending its objects, and the CIT(E) had granted approval in Form No.10AD on 18.04.2024. This approval was on record and was also furnished during the renewal proceedings, dislodging the factual premise of the CIT(E)'s order. The Tribunal noted that there were no adverse findings regarding the charitable nature of the objects, the genuineness of activities, or any violation of material laws. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E), the Tribunal stated that the Commissioner's inquiry at the registration stage is circumscribed by statutory parameters, focusing on charitable objects and genuine activities, and peripheral objections should not lead to denial unless they directly impact statutory conditions. Since the factual premise of non-compliance with section 12A(1)(ac)(v) was found to be incorrect, the rejection of renewal under section 12AB was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant renewal. Consequently, the rejection of approval under section 80G, which was consequential to the 12AB rejection, was also set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant approval under section 80G. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a careful and holistic consideration of the record, noting that denial of registration on a factually contradicted premise defeats the statutory purpose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the renewal of registration under section 12AB on the grounds of non-compliance with section 12A(1)(ac)(v) when the assessee had already obtained approval for amended objects. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(E) erred by assuming no application was filed under section 12A(1)(ac)(v) after amending its objects. It contended that such an application was indeed filed and approved by the CIT(E) himself on 18.04.2024, and this fact was brought to the CIT(E)'s notice during the renewal proceedings. Therefore, the finding that modified objects were not approved was factually incorrect. The assessee also argued that there were no findings regarding non-charitable objects, non-genuine activities, or violation of material laws, making the rejection unsustainable. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions for the revenue. The CIT(E)'s order, as narrated in the facts, rejected the application based on the assessee's alleged failure to make a fresh application for registration within thirty days of adopting or modifying its objects that did not conform to the conditions of registration, as mandated by section 12A(1)(ac)(v).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G,Section 12A(1)(ac)(v),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 11,Section 12,Section 2(15),Section 12AA,Section 8

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 09/06/2026

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The aforesaid two appeals have been preferred by the assessee against two separate orders dated 29.03.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax

(Exemptions), Mumbai, whereby the application filed by the approval under section 80G of the Act has also been rejected. Since both the appeals arise from the same factual matrix, rest upon the same reas

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →