TAMAASHA STUDIO FOUNDATION,MUMBAI V. CIT (E), MUMBAI

ITA 4943/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tamaasha Studio Foundation, which appealed against the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai, rejecting their application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issues in the appeal included a clerical error in the e-filing process and concerns regarding the trust's object clause potentially allowing funds to be applied outside India. However, before the tribunal could make a decision, the assessee withdrew the appeal, having filed a new application that was accepted for further consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793457 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: MIHIR NANIWADEKAR
• Section: 11; 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ITA No. 4943/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2025-26) Tamaasha Studio Foundation Plot-249, Flat 205, 2nd Floor, C Wing, Gandhi Indra Prastha Regency CHSL, Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 104. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AAJCT5140Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(E)’ for short), in rejecting the assessee’s application seeking registration u/s. 12AB of the Act. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT-(E), Mumbai has erred in rejecting application of the appellant trust filed u/s 12A(1)(ac) of the Act without appreciating that the said action was not justified on facts and in law. 2. The ld. CIT(E) failed to appreciate the clerical error committed in selecting appropriate head in drop down list provided in e-filing portal while furnishing Form 10AB electronically cannot lead to denial of registration, more particularly, on the fact that appellant is fulfilling all the conditions provided u/s 12A for becoming eligible to obtain registration. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4943/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2025-26) Tamaasha Studio Foundation 2 3. Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the appellant respectfully submits that the learned CIT(E), Mumbai has erred both in fact and in law in rejecting the appellant trust's application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, solely on the ground that the object clause in the trust deed/Memorandum of Association (MOA) indicates an intention to apply funds outside India without appreciating that such an observation is misconceived, as the existence of a general object clause indicating possible activities outside India does not, in itself, amount to a violation of the provisions of Section 12A of the Act calling for rejection of the application for grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act, particularly when no such expenditure has actually been incurred, nor any such application of income has taken place. 4. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the appellant submits that the learned CIT(E), Mumbai erred in law and on facts by failing to appreciate that the consideration of an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be confined to the present and actual objects and activities of the trust, and not influenced by hypothetical apprehensions of future violations, and that the mere existence of an object clause in the trust deed or MoA suggesting a possible application of funds outside India cannot, in the absence of any actual such application, be deemed a contravention of Section 11 and contrary to the statutory scheme which envisages that eligibility for exemption under Section 11 is to be examined annually at the stage of assessment based on real facts and conduct rather than at the stage of initial registration.” 3. The assessee submits that it had filed a fresh application for registration dated 29.04.2025 in Form No. 10AB seeking registration u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act and the same was admitted and notice of hearing dated 15.09.2025 was issued by the ld. CIT(Exemption), Mumbai. For the said reason, the assessee seeks leave to withdraw the present appeal without prejudice to its rights and contentions and also with liberty to raise all contentions at the time of hearing of the fresh application. 4. The assessee therefore intends to withdraw the present appeal and had made a written submission dated 18.09.2025 to that effect. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue had nothing to controvert the same. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4943/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2025-26) Tamaasha Studio Foundation 3 6. Upon perusal of the same, we hereby direct that the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24.09.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "