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

ITA 8696/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 20267 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anantaru Foundation, filed appeals against the orders dated 28/06/2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)). These orders rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rejection for Section 12AB registration was based on certain clauses in the assessee's Memorandum of Association (MOA) which, according to the CIT(E), contemplated activities involving the application or utilization of funds outside India, thus not conforming to Section 11 of the Act. The assessee contended these clauses were standard and did not reflect an intention to violate the Act, offering to amend the MOA. The CIT(E) rejected the application, deeming the willingness to amend insufficient without actual amendment. The Section 80G approval was rejected as a consequence of the Section 12AB rejection.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the principal objection of the CIT(E) was regarding enabling clauses in the MOA that permitted the application of funds outside India. However, the assessee had expressed a categorical willingness to amend the MOA to remove or restrict these clauses. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection solely on the ground that amendments had not been carried out was not appropriate, given the assessee's willingness. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order for Section 12AB registration and restored the application to the file of the CIT(E). The assessee was directed to amend/delete/restrict the relevant clauses and furnish the amended MOA. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the amended objects and application afresh. The Tribunal clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the assessee's entitlement to registration, leaving all issues open. Consequently, the appeal concerning Section 80G approval, which was consequential to the Section 12AB rejection, was also set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the outcome of the Section 12AB proceedings. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the CIT(E) was justified, considering the assessee's willingness to amend its Memorandum of Association (MOA) to remove clauses permitting application of funds outside India. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the impugned clauses in its MOA were standard and did not reflect any intention to violate the Act. It was willing to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting, pass a Special Resolution, and amend/delete/restrict clauses that could be construed as permitting application of funds outside India. The assessee stated that no funds had actually been remitted or applied outside India. Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(E). 2. Whether the rejection of the assessee's application for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified, given that the application for registration under Section 12AB had been rejected. Assessee's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly linked to the Section 12AB issue. Revenue's contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implicitly linked to the Section 12AB issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G(5),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA 8696/MUM/2026
ITA 8697/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 8696/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: NA) ANANTARU FOUNDATION CIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1 C NEW RIDGE APARTMENT, 601,6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA MUMBAI , 18 RIDGE ROAD OPP HILL MTNL TE BUILDING, SAHYADR MALABAR HILL, PEDDER ROAD, DR MUMBAI-400006, Vs. GOPALRAO DESHMUKH MAHARASHTRA MARG, CUMBALLA HILL MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: ABCCA7651D

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Viraj Mehta (virtually appeared) प्रत्यर्थी द्वारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vona, CIT DR (virtually appeared) ITA 8697/MUM/2026 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: NA) ANANTARU FOUNDATION CIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1 C NEW RIDGE APARTMENT, 601,6TH FLOOR, CUMBALLA MUMBAI , 18 RIDGE ROAD OPP HILL MTNL TE BUILDING, SAHYADR MALABAR HILL, PEDDER ROAD, DR MUMBAI-400006, Vs. GOPALRAO DESHMUKH MAHARASHTRA MARG, CUMBALLA HILL MUMBAI-400026, MAHARASHTRA अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी Respondent

PAN of Assessee: ABCCA7651D

अपीलधर्थी द्वारा/Appellant repr

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 5,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →