ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. NAWAZBHAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 3581/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 September 2025AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for Ground Nos. 1 and 4, the issue concerning the deletion of addition on account of dividend income is to be decided based on the effective date of cancellation of registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal, respectfully following the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust vs. PCIT (ITA No. 7238/Mum/2019), held that the impugned order cancelling registration would be effective from March 20, 2015, the date of acquiescence to the show-cause notice. Therefore, the deletion of addition on dividend income was upheld. For Ground Nos. 2 and 3, concerning deductions under Section 80GGA and 80G, the Tribunal followed the decision in the case of R.D. Tata Trust (ITA No. 4075/Mum/2023). The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed deduction under Section 80GGA in the computation of income but not in the return due to the absence of a specific column. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the claim subject to satisfaction of other conditions. The Tribunal found no error in this direction. Regarding Section 80G, the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow deduction as per law, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in this direction. Thus, Grounds 2 and 3 were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee is Nawazbhai Ratan Tata Trust. The Revenue's grievances pertain to the deletion of additions on account of dividend income, allowing deduction under Section 80GGA, and directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80G beyond the statutory limit. The NFAC had deleted the addition on dividend income, allowed the claim for deduction under Section 80GGA due to technical reasons in the return of income, and directed the AO to allow deduction under Section 80G subject to satisfaction of conditions and statutory limits. The appeal challenges these directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of dividend income, ignoring that it was claimed exempt under Section 10(34)/10(35) despite the assessee's registration under Section 12A being in force, thus contravening Section 11(7) of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction under Section 80GGA, ignoring that it was not claimed in the return of income and raised for the first time during appellate proceedings without filing a revised return? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 80G beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 80G(4), which restricts the aggregate deduction to 10% of Gross Total Income? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of dividend income, ignoring that the mere surrender of registration under Section 12A does not automatically remove the assessee from the purview of Section 12AA unless withdrawn by the competent authority? Assessee's Contentions: Not explicitly recorded for all grounds, but implicitly argued for deletion of additions and allowance of deductions before the lower authorities. Revenue's Contentions: For Ground 1 & 4, the dividend income was taxable as registration under Section 12A was in force and surrender of registration does not automatically exempt it. For Ground 2, deduction under Section 80GGA was not admissible as it was not claimed in the original return. For Ground 3, the AO's restriction on Section 80G deduction was in accordance with law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(34),Section 10(35),Section 11(7),Section 12A,Section 12AA,Section 80G,Section 80GGA,Section 80G(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, A/R
For Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R
Hearing: 09/09/2025Pronounced: 11/09/2025

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 07/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"} pertaining to AY 2016-17. 2. The grievance of the revenue reads as under:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of dividend income ignoring the fact that dividend income was claimed exempt u/s 10(34)/10(35) of the Act despite the fact that the assessee's registration u/s 12A

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 10(34)

All 731 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(34) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →