ITO(E) v. Chambur Gymkhana

80 Taxmann.com 354Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#21418 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi)Section 12ABSection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

Judgments citing ITO(E) v. Chambur Gymkhana

Yakshit Yuva Foundation, Belagavi vs. CIT (Exemption), Bengaluru

Appeals stands Allowed

ITA 234/PAN/2025[80G]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 233 & 234/Pan/2025 Yakshit Yuva Foundation O/O Taekwondo Master Rao, 1St Fl, Gadekar Complex, P B Road, Kakati S.O., Belagavi. Pan : Aaaty9435D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption, Bangalore. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Shreepada Ravi Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

…ial registration u/s 80G of the Act and thus for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. A similar view that collecting fee would not itself disqualify the assessee from registration & disentitle for exemption was found taken in ‘ITO Vs Chembur Gymkhana’ [2017, 80 Taxmann.com 354 (Mum)]. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Yakshit Yuva Foundation Vs CIT(E) ITA Nos.233 & 234/PAN/2025 27. The respondent Revenue could lay much less material to showcase the disqualification of the appellant assessee for grant of regular registration u/s 12AB of the Act and equal registration u/s 80G of the Act. Faced with the situation, wi…

Yakshit Yuva Foundation, Belagavi vs. CIT (Exemption), Bengalore

Appeals stands Allowed

ITA 233/PAN/2025[12AB]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Mar 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 233 & 234/Pan/2025 Yakshit Yuva Foundation O/O Taekwondo Master Rao, 1St Fl, Gadekar Complex, P B Road, Kakati S.O., Belagavi. Pan : Aaaty9435D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Exemption, Bangalore. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: Mr Shreepada Ravi Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Azar Zain [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(iii)

…ial registration u/s 80G of the Act and thus for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. A similar view that collecting fee would not itself disqualify the assessee from registration & disentitle for exemption was found taken in ‘ITO Vs Chembur Gymkhana’ [2017, 80 Taxmann.com 354 (Mum)]. ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 22 Yakshit Yuva Foundation Vs CIT(E) ITA Nos.233 & 234/PAN/2025 27. The respondent Revenue could lay much less material to showcase the disqualification of the appellant assessee for grant of regular registration u/s 12AB of the Act and equal registration u/s 80G of the Act. Faced with the situation, wi…

Indian Beauty and Hygiene Association, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 26

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC–II” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.566/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Indian Beauty And Hygiene Association 504, Midas, 5th Floor, Sahar Plaza Complex, M.V. Road, Near Kohinoor ……………. Appellant Hotel, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 PAN – AAATHI1252J v/s Income Tax Officer (Exemp.) ……………. Respondent Ward–3, Mumbai Revenue by : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi Assessee by : Shri Madhur Aggarwal Date of Hearing – 09.11.2020 Date of Order – 25.11.2020 O R D E R Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 30th Nove…

Otters Club, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E)-II(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 648/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka a/wFor Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikeyan
Section 11Section 12A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.648/Mum./2013 ITA no.1551/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year: 2009–10) (Assessment Year: 2010–11) ITA no.1552/Mum./2015 ITA no.6913/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year: 2011–12) (Assessment Year: 2012–13) ITA no.6914/Mum./2016 (Assessment Year: 2013–14) Otters Club Carter Road ……………. Appellant Mumbai 400 050 PAN – AAATO0013F v/s Income Tax Officer (Exemp.) ……………. Respondent Ward–2(2), Mumbai Revenue by : Shri Abirama Kartikeyan Assessee by: Shri Porus Kaka a/w Shri Nitesh Joshi…

ITO(E) v. Chambur Gymkhana (80 Taxmann.com 354) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax