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 However, while doing so, the learned CIT(Exemptions) has neither referred to nor withdrawn the existing approval granted to the assessee under section 80G(5)(vi) by the order dated 06.09.2016.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

vi), the Principle Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he considers that\nthere is a reasonable cause for delay in filing the application, condone such\ndelay and such application shall be deemed to have been filed within the\ntime.\"\n18. Thus, the above provision has given power to the Principle\nCommissioner or Commissioner to condone the delay in addition to\nSection

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

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

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

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

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

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

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

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub-clause (iiiae) or sub- clause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

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 ()

Section 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

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

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

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) of the said section, which in the present case has not been carried

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

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) of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the records. We note that the application

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

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Girish Agrawal

80G of the Act, even if no such activity has yet been undertaken. The facts of the said case are also different from the facts of the present case because in the said case the assessee has failed to modify the object clause despite multiple opportunities given, thereby justifying the cancellation, but in the case in hand, the assessee

SURYA KIRAN HEALTH & EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, or section 11 or section 12, for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activity.” 3. On verification of the facts and circumstances

SHRI SATGURU SAINATH CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, or section 11 or section 12, for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activity 3. On verification of the facts and circumstances

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC 1 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JATIN RAJNIKANT SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, or section 11 or section 12, for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activity 3. On verification of the facts and circumstances