HEMENDRA KOTHARI FOUNDATION,NARIMAN POINT vs. CIT(E), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

Violation of Jurisdictional High Court Order: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in failing to grant absolute and unconditional registration, thereby violating the spirit and letter of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. CIT(E) (WPL 7587/2026).

Creation of Legal Uncertainty: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in adding a "cautionary note" regarding tax benefits. Such a condition is arbitrary and disruptive to the charitable institution, as it discourages donors and creates uncertainty over the trust's tax-exempt status.

Finality of High Court Ruling: The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that as of the date of the order, the Bombay High Court's ruling is the law of the land for the state of Maharashtra. Mere filing (or intent to file) an appeal by the Department to challenge such a ruling does not stay the operation of the High Court's clear and unambiguous directions.

Binding High Court Precedent: The Ld. CIT(E) failed to follow the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E) (WPL 7587/2026), which quashed similar rejection orders and held the Revenue's approach to be arbitrary and disruptive.

Inherent Irrevocability: The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that a public charitable trust is deemed irrevocable by operation of law unless the instrument expressly provides for revocation and absence in the trust deed cannot be interpreted as revocability and that there is no provision in the Trust Deed with regard to the revocability of the trust/which could make it to be revocable.

Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (MPT Act): The Ld. CIT(E) failed to consider that for trusts registered under the MPT Act, sections 22(3A), 22(3B), and 55 ensure that assets can never revert to the settlor, making them permanently irrevocable and thereby the condition of irrevocability got satisfied by the legal provisions themselves.

Technical vs. Substantive Compliance: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach by focusing on drafting deficiencies rather than verifying the genuineness of activities and charitable objects as required by law [by which the Ld. CIT(E) was already satisfied as is evidenced by the grant of registration/approval)

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

Each of the above ground of appeal is independent of the others and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal.

The appellant prays: • the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to delete and quash the restrictive condition making the registration/approval subject to the outcome of a future Supreme Court decision. • for the grant of unconditional and absolute registration/approval in accordance with the binding mandate of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. CIT(E) (WPL 7587/2026), as the statute does not permit the imposition of such extra-legal conditions.”

Ultra Vires Conditions: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in law by granting a "conditional" registration/approval. There is no provision under Section 80G that empowers the Commissioner to make the validity of a registration subject to the outcome of a future Supreme Court decision.

Violation of Jurisdictional High Court Order: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in falling to grant absolute and unconditional registration, thereby violating the spirit and letter of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. CIT(E) (WPL 7587/2026)

Creation of Legal Uncertainty: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in adding a "cautionary note" regarding tax benefits. Such a condition is arbitrary and disruptive to the charitable institution, as it discourages donors and creates uncertainty over the trust's tax-exempt status.

Finality of High Court Ruling: The Ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate that as of the date of the order, the Bombay High Court's ruling is the law of the land for the state of Maharashtra. Mere filing (or intent to file) an appeal by the Department does not stay the operation of the High Court's clear and unambiguous directions.

Binding High Court Precedent: The Ld. CIT(E) failed to follow the binding ratio of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E) (WPL 7587/2026). which quashed similar rejection orders and held the Revenue's approach to be arbitrary and disruptive.

Technical vs. Substantive Compliance: The Ld. CIT(E) erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach by focusing on drafting deficiencies rather than verifying the genuineness of activities and charitable objects as required by law [by which the Ld. CIT(E) was already satisfied as is evidenced by the grant of registration/approval).

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.

Each of the above ground of appeal is independent of the others and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal.

The appellant prays • the Ld. CIT(E) be directed to delete and quash the restrictive condition making the registration/approval subject to the outcome of a future Supreme Court decision • for the grant of unconditional and absolute registration/approval in accordance with the binding mandate of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. v. CIT(E) (WPL 7587/2026), as the statute does not permit the imposition of such extra-legal conditions.”

It is submitted that this Tribunal has deleted the relevant stipulation as aforesaid relating to the registration/approval subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. It is submitted that the Revenue has not yet challenged the order of the Bombay High Court in the Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra) and, that apart, the order of the jurisdictional High Court holds the field unless set aside or modified by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that notwithstanding the grant of registration/approval, such a stipulation is bound to dissuade the donors and eventually the appellant would not be able to take benefit of the registration/approval in accordance with law. Thus, the stipulation strikes at the root of the grant of the approval/registration. 10. The learned DR has submitted that the approval is not conditional. Once the approval is granted, there is no reason for the appellant to come up in appeal. The learned DR, however, did not dispute that as yet the Revenue has not filed any challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra). 11. We have carefully considered the circumstances and the submissions made. It is necessary to note that the registration/approval already stands granted. The appellant seems to be aggrieved only by the stipulation. The registration/approval under Section 12AB of the Act is with the object that the charitable activity of any trust can get donation and, at the same time, the donors are also able to claim the appropriate benefit on account of such donation as admissible in law. Once the learned CIT(E) had allowed the application granting registration/approval, the appellant-trust and the potential donors, if any, should get appropriate benefit as admissible in law. It is trite that any order subsists until it is set aside or varied by a superior forum/court. As noticed earlier, the judgment in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra) has not even been challenged as yet. In that view of the matter, and placing reliance on the co-ordinate bench order passed in Keshavial Vajechand Kapadia Charity Trust (supra), we hereby dispose of the present appeal. We direct that the registration/approval granted to the appellant shall operate without any stipulation, restriction or conditional rider. The impugned stipulation stands deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

It is submitted that this Tribunal has deleted the relevant stipulation as aforesaid relating to the registration/approval subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. It is submitted that the Revenue has not yet challenged the order of the Bombay High Court in the Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra) and, that apart, the order of the jurisdictional High Court holds the field unless set aside or modified by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that notwithstanding the grant of registration/approval, such a stipulation is bound to dissuade the donors and eventually the appellant would not be able to take benefit of the registration/approval in accordance with law. Thus, the stipulation strikes at the root of the grant of the approval/registration. 10. The learned DR has submitted that the approval is not conditional. Once the approval is granted, there is no reason for the appellant to come up in appeal. The learned DR, however, did not dispute that as yet the Revenue has not filed any challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra). 11. We have carefully considered the circumstances and the submissions made. It is necessary to note that the registration/approval already stands granted. The appellant seems to be aggrieved only by the stipulation. The registration/approval under Section 12AB of the Act is with the object that the charitable activity of any trust can get donation and, at the same time, the donors are also able to claim the appropriate benefit on account of such donation as admissible in law. Once the learned CIT(E) had allowed the application granting registration/approval, the appellant-trust and the potential donors, if any, should get appropriate benefit as admissible in law. It is trite that any order subsists until it is set aside or varied by a superior forum/court. As noticed earlier, the judgment in the case of Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra) has not even been challenged as yet. In that view of the matter, and placing reliance on the co-ordinate bench order passed in Keshavial Vajechand Kapadia Charity Trust (supra), we hereby dispose of the present appeal. We direct that the registration/approval granted to the appellant shall operate without any stipulation, restriction or conditional rider. The impugned stipulation stands deleted.

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”