DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

charitable trust is eligible for registration or not, whereas for the purposes of Section 115BBC(2)(b) what is relevant is the object and nature of the trust / institution. The relevant non-obstante clause of Section 80G(5B) of the Act is extracted below:- “(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub- section (5

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

charitable trust is eligible for registration or not, whereas for the purposes of Section 115BBC(2)(b) what is relevant is the object and nature of the trust / institution. The relevant non-obstante clause of Section 80G(5B) of the Act is extracted below:- “(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub- section (5

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

charitable trust is eligible for registration or not, whereas for the purposes of Section 115BBC(2)(b) what is relevant is the object and nature of the trust / institution. The relevant non-obstante clause of Section 80G(5B) of the Act is extracted below:- “(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub- section (5

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

charitable trust is eligible for registration or not, whereas for the purposes of Section 115BBC(2)(b) what is relevant is the object and nature of the trust / institution. The relevant non-obstante clause of Section 80G(5B) of the Act is extracted below:- “(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub- section (5

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

section 80G(5) and read as under- A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust (ii) where the application is made

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

section 80G(5) and read as under- A.Ys.2022-23 Chamber of Indian Charitable Trust (ii) where the application is made

SUBHARMA CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2025-26

trust inadvertently filed the application under clause (ii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act instead of filing the same under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act, since it already had provisional approval. The learned AR submitted that no 4 Subharma Charitable

AMRUT PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramrut Public Charitable Ito Exemption Trust Ward 1(1), Block 4, Plot No. 578A, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Jitendra Bldg, Pedder Road, Jamejamshed Road, Mumbai-400 026 Matunga, Mumbai- 400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaata4810A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. P. Jayaraman, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.01.2026

trust, the genuineness of its activities, or compliance with the substantive conditions prescribed under clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5) of the Act. The delay has been satisfactorily explained as arising from bona fide confusion under the transition regime, which explanation stands supported by sworn affidavits and contemporaneous material and has not been rebutted by the Revenue

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Charitable And 20,00,000 80G 50% 10,00,000 Welfare Trust 3 School For Deaf Mutes 15,00,000 80G 50% 7,50,000 Society 4 Andh Kanya Prakash 5,00,000 80G 50% 2,50,000 Gruh 5 Samvedana 5,00,000 80G 50% 2,50,000 6 Family Planning 5,00,000 80G 100% 5

SHETH VIJILAL LAXMIDAS TRIBVONDAS KESARBAI VIJILAL POONA CONVALCENT HOME,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2025-26

5) of Section 80G 7. The Appellant Trust was deprived out of natural justice since no opportunity was given to rectify the error occurred in selecting the clause for revalidation; 8. The Appellant Trust is a Charitable Trust, which is rendering meritorious services and providing marvelous services for which it is established; 9. The Appellant Trust should get the benefit

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

trusts to whom donations were given and therefore the AO om donations were given and therefore the AO om donations were given and therefore the AO was aware of the entire break was aware of the entire break-up of donations on which up of donations on which deduction under section 80G was claimed. Since none of the deduction under

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

80G and 80GGA of the Act after factual verification. This ground is allowed.” 14. Following the aforesaid analogy drawn by the ITAT in the case of Tata Education Trust (supra), the identical issue regarding deduction under section 80GGA is directed to be allowed after factual verifications by the AO. 15. In result, Ground No.2 elaborated from 2.1 to 2.3 stands

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. Situation 4 : The company has contributed Rs.1 crore to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund and Rs. 1 crore to any other charitable trust registered u/s 80G(5

JINSEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appe

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

5 3532/MUM/2025 Jinseva Foundation Jinseva Foundation purposes in India. But even the said section does not completely rule out exemption to purposes in India. But even the said section does not completely rule out exemption to purposes in India. But even the said section does not completely rule out exemption to incomes applied outside Indi incomes applied outside India

PAW PETS FOUNDATION,PALGHAR, THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) 1(3), THANE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Trust.” 2. The assessee filed the application in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act before the CIT(E) on 17.11.2022. The CIT(E) rejected the application stating that the assessee has not filed the present application within the time allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5

TRIMURTI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokartrimurti Educational Ito, Exemption Charitable Trust Ward 202/12 Tulsidham, Vs. Qureshi Mansion, Ghodbundar Road, Thane, Thane Mumbai- 400607 Pan/Gir No. Aaatt9677N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P P Jayaraman Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

charitable trusts while complying with the newly introduced framework. In the present case, the assessee’s explanation for delay is wholly consistent with the very circumstances which necessitated issuance of the said circulars, namely, confusion arising from multiple approvals carrying different terminal years of validity under the transition regime. 18. Viewed in this backdrop, a rigid and mechanical rejection

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

II (1) Vs. Hincon House, 11th Floor, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 247 Park, L.B.S. Marg, Parel, Lalbaug Vikhroli (West) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400083 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATW0014E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Ms. Vaibhavi Patel Revenue by: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05.01.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

5. We heard the parties and perused the record. Under the Income tax Act, the income derived by a charitable trust or institution out of properties held under trust is exempt u/s 11 of the Act, subject to the conditions prescribed in the provisions governing the charitable trusts or institutions. Under the scheme of section