SHAILESH KAPADIA MEMORIAL TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the case back for fresh consideration. This was based on the assessee's action of amending the objectionable clause, thereby addressing the CIT's concern.
What were the facts?
The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act. The CIT rejected the 12A application due to a clause in the trust deed allowing funds for activities outside India, violating Section 11. The assessee subsequently amended this clause.
What were the issues?
Whether the trust deed's clause allowing application of funds outside India violated Section 11, and if the subsequent amendment cured the defect for 12A registration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLENARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE JAGADISH
आदेश / ORDER
PERNARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against the order even dated 27.12.2025, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 12A and 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
As the cases under consideration are having involved identical facts for registration under Section 12A and 80G of the Act and therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order.
Coming ITA No.1487/M/2026, it observed that in this case the Assessee is aggrieved against the impugned order, rejecting the application filed by the Assessee under Section 12A of the Act.
We observe from the impugned order that on verification of Form 10AB and Trust Deed/MoA, specifically Clause No. 4(b)(xi) of the objects, the ld. Commissioner observed that the same is in violation of the provision of Section 11 of the Act. For brevity, the Clause No. 4(b)(xi) of Trust Deed/MoA as objected to by the Ld. Commissioner, read as under:
"4(b)(xi) To grant scholarships, prizes and/or loans or financial assistance in any manner whatsoever to deserving students in all education spheres including medicine, science, arts, crafts, commerce, technical training. research, fine arts, physical development, language or any other knowledge whatsoever and encourage, support and finance all activities including travel to and study in foreign countries...."
Therefore, the ld. Commissioner, by issuing show cause notice dated 09.11.2025, show caused the Assessee, who in response made its submission vide letter dated 22.12.2025 inter-alia supporting such objectionable clause.
The ld. Commissioner though, considered the reply/claim of the Assessee, however, found the same as neither satisfactory nor conclusive and therefore, the ld. Commissioner rejected the application seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act by concluding as under:
“That the aforesaid Clause 4(b)(xi) expressly enables application of the trust funds for purposes outside India and therefore, he is having left with no option, rejecting the application seeking registration under Section 12AB of the Act. However, with liberty to pursue the remedies available in the statute without any prejudice.”
The Assessee therefore, being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal and during the course of hearing apprised this Court that in order to meet out the objection raised by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order and to cut short the litigation, it has already filed an application before the appropriate authority for amendment/modification of the “Clause objected to” by the ld. Commissioner, which read as under: -
4(b) xi. To grant scholarships, prizes and/or loans or financial assistance in any manner whatsoever to deserving students in all educational spheres including medicine, science, arts, crafts, commerce, technical training, research, fine arts, physical development, languages or other knowledge whatsoever and encourage, support and finance all activities in educational, scientific, technical, technological and cultural spheres.
Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, as the Assessee in order to cut short the litigation, has already initiated the process for amendment of the objected clause by the ld. Commissioner and thus, removed the defect and hence, the objection raised by the ld. Commissioner with regard to the violation of provision of Section 11 has already been addressed to or met out by the Assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by taking into consideration the amended Clause 4(b)(xi), as amended by the Assessee. Consequently, the case is remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the above terms.
As we have set aside the impugned order and remanded back the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, thus are not delving other issues involved, as adjudication of the same would be futile exercise.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh.
Coming to ITA No. 1488/M/2026, which pertains to Registration under Section 80G of the Act, as we have remanded the case pertaining to the registration under Section 12A of the Act to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh and thus, in view of the same, this case is also remanded to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh simultaneously, with the application under Section 12A of the Act, as remanded back to him.
In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2026 Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary
Copy to:
Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The PCIT / CIT, THE D.R., 4. ITAT, MUMBAIBENCH 5. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., MUMBAI
More judgments on Section 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026