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

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

delay under clause (iii) of the first proviso to section 80G(5). However, while doing so, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has neither referred to nor withdrawn the existing approval granted to the assessee under section 80G(5)(vi) by the order dated 06.09.2016. Thus, on the one hand, the application for approval under the new regime has been rejected

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

5 of section 8oG of the Act and;\nII) if there was delay in filing Form 10AB, whether the same can be\ncondoned by this Tribunal or same can also be condoned by Ld.\nCIT(E) under the proviso of section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.\n11. As per Form 10AC issued u/s 80G

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

5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act. We thus find merit in the submission

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

5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act. We thus find merit in the submission

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

5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act. We thus find merit in the submission

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

5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC(2)(b) of the Act. We thus find merit in the submission

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 of 86 days. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any or all the above grounds of appeal. ” 4. We have heard Ld AR and DR and examined the record. At the outset

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

BLOSSOM CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

delay.\nThe assessee filed reply on 01.08.2025.\n6. The CIT(E) held that the time limit prescribed under clause\n(iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) is mandatory, there is no\npower to condone

AARAMBH YOGA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD - 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2026-27

section 80G (5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2 Aarambh Yoga Foundation 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 28 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee explained that the person responsible for filing the appeal was out of station during the relevant period and therefore, the appeal could

NILESH KULKARNI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm& Ms Padmavathy S, Am

delay is not condoned and that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 11 of the Act. In our considered view, the application for registration under section 80G has to considered as per the provisions of subsection 6 Nilesh Kulkarni Foundation (5

SHRI RAM EK DHARMADA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarshri Ram Ek V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax Dharmada Trust बनाम (Exemption), Mumbai, 601, 6Th 9, Babulnath Road, Floor, Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Chowpatty Road, Mumbai Building, Peddar Road, Dr. 400 007, Maharashtra Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill Mumbai 400026, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahts2280D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

condone the minor clerical error as well as the delay in filing, set aside the rejection order and direct the ld.CIT(E) to process the application on merits under the correct sub-clause (iii) of Section 80G(5

BHAGWATI FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Foundation, 1304, Regent Chambers, Jamnalal Bajaj Road, Nariman Point, ............... Appellant Mumbai-400021. Pan : Aadtb3235B V/S Cit(Exemptions), Cumballa Hill, ……………… Respondent Mtnl Telephone Exchange Building, Pedder Road, Dr Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai – 400026. Assessee By : Shri Priyank Ghia Revenue By : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Sr.Dr

delay ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice, particularly when there is no malafide intent or lapse on the part of the trust. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(E) has erred in not considering that the appellant had held certificate u/s 80G of the Act prior to the insertion of the amendment effective

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 ()

5 of the Limitation Act. evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon’ble evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon’ble evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. lector of Land Acquisition v. Supreme Court in the case

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 ()

5 of the Limitation Act. evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon’ble evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon’ble evaluating sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. lector of Land Acquisition v. Supreme Court in the case

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 of the Act on Corporate Social Responsibility (“CSR”) expenses. 16. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: During

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