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

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

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

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

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

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

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

80G registration to ipso facto deny the exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act is held to be untenable. 37. In light of the above reasons, we thus do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.147,71,54,875/- made u/s 115BBC

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

delay occurred due to a bona fide 3 Amrut Public Charitable Trust misunderstanding regarding the validity period of the provisional approval under section 80G(5), which, according to the assessee, was mistakenly presumed to be co-terminus with the registration under section 12A, i.e. up to A.Y. 2026–27. The assessee also sought condonation

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Section 80G of\nthe Act. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and\nthe appeal be allowed.\n9. On the other hand, Ld. DR opposed the arguments of Ld. AR and\nsubmitted that the explanation given for condonation of delay

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

delay of 4 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condoned. 15. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal, pertains to the deduction claimed under section 80G

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from Section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

delay in filing the appeals is condoned.\n4. Now, we take up the appeal of the Revenue for assessment\nyear 2019-2020. The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced\nas under:\n1. \"Whether the contribution or donation made by assessee not\nvoluntarily, but to discharge legal obligation arising from section 135\nof the Company's Act r.w. schedule

SHRIJAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,SANTACRUZ (EAST) vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, CUMABALLA HILL

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay in filing the appeals appeals appeals stands stands stands condoned. condoned. condoned. The The The appeals appeals appeals are are are admitted admitted admitted for for for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits. 3.3 As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that

SHRIJAL WELFARE FOUNDATION,SANTACRUZ (EAST) vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

delay in filing the appeals appeals appeals stands stands stands condoned. condoned. condoned. The The The appeals appeals appeals are are are admitted admitted admitted for for for adjudication on merits. adjudication on merits. 3.3 As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that the Ld. CIT(E) As regards the impugned orders, it is seen that

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

delay of 4 days in filing the appeal\nby the Revenue is condoned.\n15. The issue arising in Ground No.1, raised in Revenue's appeal, pertains\nto the deduction claimed under section 80G

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 ()

80G(5) on the ground of delay. In that case, although the assessee had filed Form 10AB just two months late, the Tribunal held that neither the Commissioner (Exemptions) nor the Tribunal is empowered to condone such delay, as there is no statutory provision under Section

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

Section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), solely on the technical ground of delay in filing form 10AB, thereby failing to appreciate that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate. 2. That the learned CIT(Exemption) ought to have appreciated that the delay in filing the application for final approval was due to a bona fide

RASHTRA TEJ MANCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the Form 10AB u/s 80G of the Act, the Ld. Coordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in Swach Vapi Mission Trust (supra) has held that the Tribunal is a final fact finding authority, and based on the assessee facts and undue hardship created by the clause (iii) of 3rd proviso of section

COTAAP RESERCH FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhancotaap Research Foundation Cit(Exemptions), Cotton Exchange Building, 2Nd Floor, R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumbulla Opp. Cotton Green Railway Station, Vs. Hill, Mtnl Building, Pedder Cotton Green (East), Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Mumbai-400 033 Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Pan: Aaatc0052A Maharashtra – 400 026

section 80G of the Act without condoning the delay of the Appellant, as there was a bona fide reason for the delay

DCIT CENT. CIR. -7(3), MUMBAI vs. PALAVA DWELLERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delayed payment of TDS 0.1284 Crores Interest on Income Tax 0.0069 Crores Total 4.0572 Crores 19. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer ignored following deductions claimed by assessee in the revised return filed: Reduction in 14A disallowances 0.295 Crores Additional deduction claimed under 7.87 Crores section 80G of the Act Total 8.165 Crores

LODHA DEVELOPERS LTD(FORMERLY KNOWN AS LODHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 71-G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor C.P. Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent) Lodha Developers Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. {Since Merged M/S. Palava Dwellers Pvt. Ltd.,} Central Circle – 7(3) 412, 4Th Floor, 17G, Vardhman Chamber Room No. 655, 6Th Floor Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcl1117D (Appellant) (Respondent)

delayed payment of TDS 0.1284 Crores Interest on Income Tax 0.0069 Crores Total 4.0572 Crores 19. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer ignored following deductions claimed by assessee in the revised return filed: Reduction in 14A disallowances 0.295 Crores Additional deduction claimed under 7.87 Crores section 80G of the Act Total 8.165 Crores

ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION (NOW BTG ADVAYA CHARITABLE FOUNDATION),MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

condonation of delay in accordance with law keeping in view to the above principles of natural justice." 8.3 In view of the above discussion, we deem it appropriate to restore the application for seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act to the file of the ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication on the delay in submission of relevant