KSHITIJ FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

ITA 8294/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2026AY 2027-2811 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) erred in imposing the condition that the registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G would be subject to the outcome of future proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal reasoned that once registration/approval is granted after examining the application and material, it cannot be made contingent on a possible future outcome of higher judicial proceedings. The exercise of jurisdiction under section 12AB and 80G must be completed based on the law applicable at the time of the order. The possibility of a subsequent alteration of the legal position does not justify qualifying the granted registration/approval. The Ld. CIT(E) had already considered the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 'The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. vs. CIT(E)' and granted registration/approval. Therefore, imposing such a condition diluted the effect of the granted registration/approval. The Tribunal noted the assessee's steps to modify the trust deed but stated it was not necessary to opine on those proceedings as registration was already granted. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the condition imposed by the Ld. CIT(E) in both orders. The registration and approval granted shall operate in accordance with law without being subjected to the impugned condition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kshitij Foundation, filed appeals against two orders dated 28/03/2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (Ld. CIT(E)). These orders granted registration under section 12AB(1)(b) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2027-28 to 2036-37 and approval under section 80G(5)(ii) for AYs 2027-28 to 2031-32. Both grants were made subject to a condition that their applicability and consequential tax benefits would be contingent upon the outcome of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeals were delayed by 59 days, for which the assessee provided an explanation citing a bona fide belief that no appeal was necessary against a conditional clause, and subsequent practical difficulties faced in receiving donations due to this condition. The Tribunal condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in imposing a condition that the registration under section 12AB(1)(b) would be subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly when the trust deed did not contain an explicit clause affirming irrevocability, but the trust was registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 'The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. vs. CIT(E)' held that a public charitable trust is deemed irrevocable by operation of law unless expressly stated otherwise. - Assessee's contention: The non-inclusion of an express irrevocability clause is not a condition precedent, as the trust is automatically irrevocable unless specified. The trust is irrevocable under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. Section 12AB does not grant power to impose independent conditions. The condition creates uncertainty and impacts donor comfort. Proceedings to modify the trust deed are underway. The condition should be deleted. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in imposing a condition that the approval under section 80G(5)(ii) would be subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, given that the approval was granted after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 'The Chamber of Tax Consultants & Ors. vs. CIT(E)', which accepted the irrevocability by operation of law. - Assessee's contention: Similar to issue 1, the condition is unjustified and creates uncertainty. The approval should operate without this contingency. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G(5),Section 50A(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 8294/MUM/2026
ITA 8295/MUM/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई पीठें, म ुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: C BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 8294/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2027-28) KSHITIJ FOUNDATION CIT (EXEMPTIONS) S-6, ORICON HOUSE, 12 K ROOM NO 601, 6TH FLOOR, DUBHASH, KALA GHODA, CUMBALLA HILL MTNL TE MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400023, Vs. BLDG, PEDDAR ROAD, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AABTK2566Q

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri N. Jayendran, AR प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vona, CIT DR, (virtually appeared) ITA 8295/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2027-28) KSHITIJ FOUNDATION CIT (EXEMPTIONS) S-6, ORICON HOUSE, 12 K ROOM NO 601, 6TH FLOOR, DUBHASH MARG, KALA CUMBALLA HILL MTNL TE GHODA, MUMBAI, MUMBAI- Vs. BLDG, PEDDAR ROAD 400023, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AABTK2566Q

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri N. Jayendran, AR प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vona, CIT DR, (vir

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 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →