SAI PUSHPA CHARITABLE TRUST,GOREGAON vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 2(3) MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

ITA 8785/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2026AY 2024-254 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had rejected the application by examining its maintainability only under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5) and had not considered whether the application could be entertained under clause (iv)(B) of the said proviso. The Tribunal noted that clause (iv) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), as substituted and amended by the Finance Act, 2023 and Finance (No.2) Act, 2024, permits an institution whose activities have commenced to apply for approval at any time after the commencement of such activities. The assessee's request for consideration under clause (iv)(B) required examination under the provision as it stood on 09.10.2025. Since the CIT(E) had not examined the application under clause (iv)(B) and had not dealt with its merits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(E)'s file. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the application under clause (iv)(B), examine the genuineness of activities and fulfilment of conditions, and pass a fresh order after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The period and assessment year from which approval is to operate will be determined in accordance with applicable statutory provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sai Pushpa Charitable Trust, filed an appeal against the order dated 27.06.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) rejected the Trust's application in Form No.10AB for grant of approval under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Trust had obtained provisional registration under section 80G on 20.02.2022, valid until 31.03.2024. Its activities commenced before this provisional approval. The application for regular approval was filed on 09.10.2025. The CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the grounds that it was belated and that he lacked the power to condone the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application for approval under section 80G on the grounds that the CIT(E) had no power to condone a belated application, when the assessee argued that its application could be considered under clause (iv)(B) of the first proviso to section 80G(5), which permits an institution whose activities have commenced to apply at any time after commencement. 2. Whether the learned CIT(E) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had obtained provisional registration, applied for final registration, and that the 6-month time limit from commencement of activities does not apply in its case, especially considering Circular 7 of 2024 which extended the due date to 30.06.2024, and the Trustees' lack of awareness of the due date for final registration. The Revenue contended that the impugned order was correct, supporting the CIT(E)'s conclusion that a belated application under clause (iii) could not be entertained without an express power to condone delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 10(23C),Section 11,Section 12

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Ryansaldanha
For Respondent: Shri Srinivasa Rao Vona, CIT-DR
Hearing: 24.09.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.06.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“CIT(E)”], under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), rejecting its application in Form No.10AB for grant of approval.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] erred in rejecting the application for approval u/s 80G of the Act dated 27.06.2026 on the grounds that the CIT(E) had no power to condone a belated application. Sai Pushpa Charitable Trust 2) The ld CIT(E) erred in not app

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 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →