BHAKTI TRUST,MUMBAI-400088 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

condone the delay in both the appeals filed by the assessee. 3. The fact in brief is that the assessee trust was registered u/s 12A of the Act vide registration no. DIT(E)/12A/37348/2002-03, dated 07.04.2003. Thereafter, the assessee submitted application u/s 12A, dated 12.05.2021 for re-registration in form 10AC under sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection

D K AJMERA FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI-400077 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Us Also Falls Within The Covid Period. Pursuant To The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing Of The Appeals By The Assessee & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 326 days. Ground No. 2: a. The Hon. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax / Commissioner erred in passing "order for provisional approval" in Form 10AC under Sub clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G r/w. rule 17A/11AA/2C, where the appellant had applied for the re-registration of the existing trust under

D K AJMERA FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI-400077 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Us Also Falls Within The Covid Period. Pursuant To The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing Of The Appeals By The Assessee & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 326 days. Ground No. 2: a. The Hon. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax / Commissioner erred in passing "order for provisional approval" in Form 10AC under Sub clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G r/w. rule 17A/11AA/2C, where the appellant had applied for the re-registration of the existing trust under

NISHRIN BOOKWALA MEMORIAL CANCER AID TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

ab), the person in receipt of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for registration of the trust or the Principal

NISHRIN BOOKWALA MEMORIAL CANCER AID TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

ab), the person in receipt of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for registration of the trust or the Principal

MS. ANAGHA AMAR AINAPURE,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 2664/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 17 months i.e. 500 days were condoned. 4. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is a trust and working in Dharavi, Mumbai in Slum area for education of the children. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted a paper book which is kept in the record. The assessee is already registered

SHALEM ASSEMBLIES OF GOD MISSION,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 2664/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 17 months i.e. 500 days were condoned. 4. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is a trust and working in Dharavi, Mumbai in Slum area for education of the children. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted a paper book which is kept in the record. The assessee is already registered

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals and admitted them for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a non-profit organization, incorporated u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 08-12-2023. The main objects of the assessee read as under: “Promote Indian heritage art such as Indian Classical music

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

condone the delay in filing these appeals and admitted them for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a non-profit organization, incorporated u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 08-12-2023. The main objects of the assessee read as under: “Promote Indian heritage art such as Indian Classical music

SHAMKRIS CHARITY FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadangms Padmavathy S, Am

12A(1)(ac) on the ground that Appellant has not made submission / compliance to notices issued. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemption failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant has not been provided with reasonable opportunity of being head as mandated by section 12AB(1

AVINASH AMITA JAIN FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal ()

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, te 30.09.2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby extends

SHRI SURTI MODH VANIK JAGRUTI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, in view of the above circular, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chuadhary , Jm

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30-9-2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby

SHRI SURTI MODH VANIK JAGRUTI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, in view of the above circular, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chuadhary , Jm

condone the delay in filing Form No. 10A/10AB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30-9-2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby

SHREE SPANAN FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-CPC BANGALURU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

condone the delay for completion of\nappellate proceedings.\nThe submission of the assessee has been carefully considered in\nthe light of the conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 as\nenumerated in section 12(A)(1)(b):-\nThe provisions of Section 11 and 12 shall not apply in relation to\nincome of any trust or institution unless the following

NARKE GREEN FOUNDATION CHARITABLE INSTITUTION,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

12A application, or on the bona fide belief that 80G(5) application was simultaneously submitted, is irrelevant. Each provision under the Act is governed by its own procedural requirements. It is trite law that a bona fide mistake or inadvertent omission cannot override a statutory limitation, especially when the authority concerned has no statutory discretion to condone delay

ARYA SINDHU SANSKRIT GURUKUL SANSTHAN,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7700/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) & 2. Ita No. 7701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Arya Sindhu Sanskrit Cit (Exemption), Gurukul Sansthan 601, 6Th Floor, 141/253 Mulund Vs. Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Colony, Saraswati Te Building, Pedder Chowk, Mumbai-400 Road, Dr. Ganpatrao 082 Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaata2526R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 80G as well. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(E), the assessee has preferred the present appeals, raising the following common grounds, save and except for the difference in the relevant statutory provisions invoked therein: 1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting

ARYA SINDHU SANSKRIT GURUKUL SANSTHAN,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 7700/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) & 2. Ita No. 7701/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Arya Sindhu Sanskrit Cit (Exemption), Gurukul Sansthan 601, 6Th Floor, 141/253 Mulund Vs. Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Colony, Saraswati Te Building, Pedder Chowk, Mumbai-400 Road, Dr. Ganpatrao 082 Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Pan/Gir No. Aaata2526R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

section 80G as well. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the learned CIT(E), the assessee has preferred the present appeals, raising the following common grounds, save and except for the difference in the relevant statutory provisions invoked therein: 1. In the circumstances and facts of our case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has erred in rejecting

KUTCHI LOHANA YOUTH FORUM MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2020-21

condone the delay in the interest of justice and fairplay and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has/erred in rejecting the application under section 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act without considering the fact that for grant of registration u/s 12AA(1