RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 66/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2016-1719 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, filed its return for AY 2016-17 declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined total income at Rs. 7,13,71,400 by denying exemption under section 10(34) for dividend income of Rs. 6,71,14,680 and disallowing deduction under section 80GGA of Rs. 55,00,000. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)), who partly allowed the appeal. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the CIT(A)'s order, which was dated 20.11.2025. The AO's assessment order was dated 28.12.2018. The ITAT heard the appeal on 15.07.2026 and pronounced its order on 29.09.2026.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the issues in favor of the assessee. Regarding the denial of deduction under Section 80GGA and Section 57, the Tribunal allowed the ground raised by the assessee, directing the deletion of the corresponding disallowances. The Tribunal noted that the substantive grounds of appeal assailing the impugned disallowances were allowed, and the corresponding disallowances were directed to be deleted. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of exemption under Section 10(34)/(35) for dividend income. It held that exemption under Section 10(34), 10(35), and 10(38) cannot be denied by virtue of Section 11 & 13 of the Act unless such pre-condition is provided. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the amendment in Section 11(7) was prospective and not retrospective, following the analogy of the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Foundation. Therefore, the assessee's claim under Section 10(34) was allowed, and the dividend income was treated as exempt. The Tribunal also stated that the remaining grounds, being general or legal contentions not requiring separate adjudication, were not adjudicated, especially as no specific submissions were advanced by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed in terms of the adjudication of the substantive grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 55,00,000 under Section 80GGA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for donations paid to eligible trusts/institutions, and alternatively, a deduction under Section 57 of the Act for the same amount as expenditure on the objects of the Trust. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that it is entitled to deduction under Section 80GGA as it did not claim benefits under Sections 11 & 12 due to non-compliance with Section 11(5) read with Section 13(1)(d). It also claimed the amount as deductible under Section 57 as expenditure on trust objects. The assessee relied on various case laws and submitted that the reliance on Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT by the CIT(A) was distinguishable. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(34)/(35) of the Act for dividend income of Rs. 6,71,14,680. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that Section 11(7) of the Act is not applicable as it had not claimed benefits of Sections 11 and 12 since AY 1993-94. It also contended that dividend income applied to trust objects to the extent of Rs. 5,90,00,000 is eligible for deduction under Section 11. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to assess the assessee, and if the transfer of the case was in violation of Section 127 of the Act. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the AO had no jurisdiction and the transfer of the case was in violation of Section 127, making the assessment illegal. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4. Whether the registration of the assessee trust under Section 12A(a) of the Act was in force. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that its Section 12A(a) registration was voluntarily surrendered on 30.03.2016 and was not in force. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GGA,Section 57,Section 10(34),Section 10(35),Section 11(5),Section 13(1)(d),Section 11(7),Section 12A(a),Section 127,Section 10(38),Section 11,Section 13

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Lakra, CIT DR
Hearing: 29.09.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 20.11.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, arises from the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 28.12.2018, passed by Income Tax Officer Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai [in short, “the Ld. AO”]. Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. DEN

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 80GGA

All 51 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80GGA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →