YASHASWI ACADEMY FOR SKILLS,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE

ITA 2448/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 October 202689 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yashaswi Academy for Skills, is appealing two orders from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Pune. The first order, dated March 24, 2026, rejected its application for registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second order, dated March 25, 2026, rejected its application for approval under Section 80G. The assessee was initially granted registration under Section 12AA on June 21, 2016, and this was renewed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) on May 28, 2021, for assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27. However, a survey action on March 6, 2024, led to the cancellation of its registration on September 29, 2025, by the PCIT based on findings of non-genuine activities, activities not in accordance with its objects, and activities not being charitable. The assessee had appealed this cancellation order, which is pending. Subsequently, the assessee applied for renewal of registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and approval under Section 80G, which were rejected by the PCIT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeals. It noted that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had cancelled the assessee's registration based on survey findings of non-genuine and non-charitable activities, and activities not in accordance with its registered objects. However, the Tribunal found that it had previously adjudicated the cancellation order in ITA No.2814/PUN/2025 dated July 3, 2026. In that prior decision, the Tribunal had elaborately discussed the issues raised by the PCIT and held that the PCIT was not justified in cancelling the registration under Sections 12AA(3), 12AA(4), and 12AB(4). Consequently, the Tribunal had directed the restoration of the registration. Given this prior ruling, the Tribunal held that the PCIT's reliance on the cancelled registration to reject the renewal application was incorrect. The Tribunal also addressed the argument regarding violations of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), noting that the assessee had relied on decisions from the Delhi and Bangalore Benches of the Tribunal which held that such violations are not 'specified violations' under the explanation to Section 12AB(4), and thus, registration cannot be cancelled on these grounds. The Tribunal also referred to Bombay High Court judgments which indicated that violations of Section 13(1)(c) only affect exemption under Section 11 to the extent of the violation, not leading to cancellation of registration. Therefore, the Tribunal found the PCIT's orders rejecting the renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) and the approval under Section 80G to be unsustainable. The appeals were allowed, and the PCIT was directed to grant the renewal of registration and approval.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions: 1. Whether the learned Pr. CIT(C) erred in rejecting the application for renewal of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) read with Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act. 2. Whether the learned Pr. CIT(C) erred in not granting renewal of registration on the grounds that the assessee had no valid registration for renewal, its activities were not as per stated objects, not charitable, involved siphoning of funds through sham transactions, income was applied for personal benefit of trustees/related parties, and specified violations regarding non-genuine activities, diversion of funds, inflated expenses, bogus invoices, wrong application of funds, and commercial activities like running hotels and restaurants were found. 3. Whether the learned Pr. CIT(C) erred in relying on his own order cancelling the registration to deny renewal. 4. Whether the learned Pr. CIT(C) erred in not appreciating that the appeal against the cancellation order was pending, and therefore, the renewal application ought to have been allowed. 5. Whether the learned Pr. CIT(C) failed to appreciate that the assessee's activities were as per its objects, charitable, did not involve siphoning of funds, personal benefit to directors/related parties, non-genuine activities, or commercial activities. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the PCIT erred in rejecting the renewal application. It contended that the PCIT should not have relied on the cancellation order, especially since the appeal against it was pending. The assessee asserted that its activities were genuine, charitable, and in line with its objects, and denied all allegations of fund siphoning, personal benefits, and commercial activities. It also argued that violations of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) are not 'specified violations' under the explanation to Section 12AB(4), citing decisions in Richmond Educational Society vs. DCIT and M/s. Islamic Academy of Education vs. PCIT(Central), Bengaluru. Furthermore, it relied on Bombay High Court decisions in CIT(Exemption) v/s. Maharashtra Academy of Engineering and Educational Research, CIT (Exemptions) Pune v/s. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal, and CIT(E) vs. Mukund Bhavan Trust, stating that violations of Section 13(1)(c) only render income to that extent ineligible for exemption under Section 11, not leading to cancellation of registration. The assessee also argued that there is no distinction between minor and major violations of Section 13(1)(c) for cancellation purposes under Section 12AB(4). Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the PCIT was justified in cancelling the registration based on survey findings of non-genuine and non-charitable activities. It also argued that for major violations of Section 13(1)(c), registration should be cancelled, citing the Amritsar Bench decision in Sh. Gurdwara Sahib Parbandhak Committee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 12AA,Section 12AB,Section 12AB(1)(b),Section 12AB(4),Section 12A(1)(ac)(i),Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii),Section 80G,Section 80G(5)(ii),Section 2(15),Section 133A,Section 13(1)(c),Section 13(1)(d),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

PER BENCH :

The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 24.03.2026 and 25.03.2026 of the Ld. PCIT(Central), Pune rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and grant of approval u/s 80G of the Act respectively. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. It was incorporated with main object to promote, initiate, implement skill development program to meet the requirement of trained manpower for ind

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 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →