AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeals are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(E), Delhi, dated 25.03 .2026, wherein the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act, filed by the applicant on 25.08 .2025 alongwith request to the approval u/s 80G of the Act in ITA Nos. 5582 & 55 83/Del/2026, respectively has been rejected in the absence o f registration u/s 12AB of the Act.
By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos.5582 & 5583/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid multiplicity of decisio n, the same are being disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 5582/Del/2026 is taken as lead case.
Fact in brief as culled out from the orders of the authorities belo w are that the Appellant Oxonian India Foundation (“OIF”),is a non-profit company incorporated on 18.09.2015u/s 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 with the object of promoting education, research, training, skill development and higher education. One of the objects in particular is providing scholarship tenable at Oxford University or Somerville College, sporting Rhodes trust scholars and providing aids &financial assistance to the students for higher educatio n in Ind ia or abroad.Thus, the objects of the appellant fro m inceptio n clearly contemplated providing educational assistance to Ind ian students pursuing hig her education outside India. Since, inception, the appellant has spo nsored various Indian students for higher education under its scholarship program associated with Somerville C ollege, Oxford University.
The appellant was initially granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 20.05.2016 w.e.f. from A.Y. 2016-17 and approval u/s 80G of the Act fro m A.Y. 2 016-17 onwards. Thereafter, registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) and approval u/s 8 0G of the Act was granted on 24.09.2021 for the period covering A.Y . 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27. Thus, the appellate has been recognized by the Income Tax Department as a charitable institution for a substantial perio d and has continuously undertaken activities in furtherance of its charitable objects i.e., education. For continuation/renewal registration fro m A.Y. 2027-28 onwards,the appellant filed an ap plication in For m No . 10AB on 25.08.2025 seeking registr ation u/s 12AB(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act.The appellant also filed application dated 04.09.2025 in Form No. 10 AB seeking approval u/s 80G of the Act. Both these applications for r egistrationu/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G has been rejectedprimarily on the grounds that there is violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act and further that there is vio lation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act becausethe decision making of short listing and selectingthe eligible students for scholarship is being done by Somerville Co llege (a foreign e ntity) and that the appellant has incurred consultancy and professional expenditure respectively, there byallegedly attracting section 11(1)(c) and se ction 13(1)(c) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the impug ned order, the assesse e is in appeal and has raised fo llowing grounds:
ITA N o. 5582/Del/2026:
“1 ) The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n la w in rejecti ng the application u/ s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) on basis of erroneous interpr etation of law and facts. Grant of scholar ship to an Indian st udent purs ui ng educati on abr oad does not amount to violation of s ecti on 11 (1)(c), as the ultimate beneficiary remains an Indian na tional.
2)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n la w in rejecti ng the application u/ s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) by not consideri ng that payments to specified/related per sons is a subject matt er of verificati on by A O duri ng assessm ent proceedi ngs and not at t he time of registra tion or renewal. Secti on 13 of t he Ac t does not, either expressly or by implication, e mpower t he rej ection or cancellation of registrati on under sectio n 12AB.
3)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n la w in rejecti ng the application u/ s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) by alleging t hat same benefici ary is given more tha n one scholarship. In the alleged inst anc e DrNavya Jannu purs ued B ac hel or of Civil La w (BCL ) in 2016 whi ch is a 10 mo nths graduate course at Uni versit y of Oxford and after t hat s hepursued Master of Philos ophy (Mphil) i n La w i n 2017 which i s a 12 months res earc h mast er's, often taken after Bachelor o f Ci vil L aw.
4)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n la w in rejecti ng the application u/ s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) by ignoring the fact t hat at the s tage of granti ng registration , it is only requir ed to exami ne t he objects of the trust .
5)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and in la w i n rejecti ng the application u/s 12A( 1 )(ac )(ii ) by ignoring t he fact that t he objects of the tr us t ar e same as at the time of previous approval s granted.
6)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n la w in rejecti ng the application u/ s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) wi t hout c onsideri ng the fact that assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2018-19 was completed without taki ng any advers e vi ew agai nst the assessee.
7)The Ld. CIT(Exe mption) erred i n la w and on facts in not app r eciati ng that the scholarship amounts wer e directly disbursed to the respec tiv e bank acc ounts of the beneficiaries in India, thereby constituti ng valid applicati on of i ncome for charitable purpos es in accordance with the provisions of Secti on 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1 961.
8)The Ld. CIT(Exe mption) erred i n la w and on facts in not appr eciating the fact that most of the sc holar ship benefi ciaries have ret urned to India after co mpl etion of their studies and are pres ently working in thearea of their professi onal int eres t, thereby furt hering the charitabl e and educat ional obj ective of the Trust.
9)The l earned CIT(Exemption) failed to appreciate that “educati on” per se constit utes a cha ritable pur pose wit hi n the mea ni ng of S ec tion 2 (15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and there is no stat utor y require ment under S ec tions 12A/12AB requiri ng sc holar ship schemes to be res tricted only to ec onomically weaker s ections .
10)The Ld. CIT(Exe mption) erred i n la w and on facts in failing to appreciat e the fact that the Oxonian Indi a Foundation, pr ovides onl y partial scholarshi ps, whereby a portio n of the educ ational expenses isrequi r ed t o be borne by the respective beneficiaries themselves.”
ITA N o. 5583/Del/2026:
“1 ) The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law in rejecti ng the approval u/s 80G(5 )(ii) on basis of r ejection of re gistr ati on u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii).
2)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law in rejecti ng the approval u/s 80G(5 )(ii) on basis of err oneous interpr etati on o f law and facts . Grant of scholarship t o an Indian student pursuing education abroad does not amount to violatio n of section 11(1 )(c ), as the ultimate benefi ciary re mai ns an Indian national.
3)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law i n rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5 )(ii) by not c onsideri ng t hat payments t o specifi ed/related pers ons is a subject matt er of verification by AO duri ng ass essm ent proc eedings and not at the time of registrati on or renewal. S ection 13 of the Act d oes not, either expres sly or by im plication, empower the rej ection or cancellation of r egi strat ion under secti on 12ABand appr oval u/s 80G.
4)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law i n rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5 )(ii) by alleging that same beneficiary is given mor e t han one sc holar ship. In the alle ged i nstance Dr Navy aJannu purs ued Bachelor of Civil Law (B CL) in 2016 which is a 10 monthsgra duate course at Uni versity of Oxford and aft er that s he pursued Mast er of Phi los ophy (Mphil) i n Law i n 2017 whic h is a 12 months research master's , often ta ken aft er Bachelor of Civil Law.
5)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law i n rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5 )(ii) by ignoring t he fact that at the s tage of granti ng registrati on , it is only r equired to ex ami ne the obj ects of t he t rust.
6)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law i n rejecting the approval u/s 80G(5 )(ii) by ignoring the fact that t he objects of the tr us t ar e same as at the tim e o f previo us approvals granted.
7)The Ld. CIT (Exemption) has erred both o n facts and i n law in rej ecti ng the approval u/s 80G(5 )(i i) without c onsidering the fact that assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2018-19 was complet ed wi thout taki ng any adver sevi ew agai nst the as sessee.
8)The Ld. CIT(Exe mption) erred i n la w and on facts in not app r eciati ng that the scholarship amounts wer e directly disbursed to the respec tiv e bank acc ounts of the beneficiaries in India, thereby constituti ng valid applicati on of i ncome for charitable purpos es in accordance with the provisions of Secti on 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1 961.
9)The Ld. CIT(Exe mption) erred i n la w and on facts in not appr eciating the fact that most of the sc holar ship benefi ciaries have ret urned to Indiaafter co mpl etion of their studies and are pres ently working in the ar ea oftheir professi onal int eres t, thereby furt hering the charitabl e and educat ional obj ective of the Trust.
10)The l earne d CIT(Exemptio n) failed t o appreciate that “educ ati on” perse constitut es a charitabl e pur pose wit hi n the mea ni ng of S ec tion 2 (15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and there is no stat utor y require ment under Secti ons 12A/12AB/80G requiri ng sc holar ship schemes to be res tricted only to ec onomically weaker s ections .
11)The Ld . CIT(Exem pti on) err ed i n law and on facts in failing to appreciat e the fact that the Oxonian Indi a Foundation, pr ovid es onl y partial scholarshi ps, whereby a portion of the educ ati onal expens es is require d to be borne by the r espective beneficiari es themselves.”
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. T he ld. AR has made various arguments regarding the impugned order as under:
a. Firstly, that there is no adverse finding in the impugned order regarding the obje cts of the appellant being not char itable and that there is no finding that the activities of the appellant are sham, fictitious, non-genuine or outside its stated objects.
b. Secondly, the rejection of the application is primarily on the alleged issue relating to application of income u/s 11(1)(c) and section 13(1)(c) of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer has co mmitted illegality by entering the arena of assessment w hich is not the requirement or consideration forgranting registr ation u/s 12AB of the Act. c. Third ly, ld. CIT(E) power to conduct inq uiry is r estr icted to inquire genuineness of the activ ity of the trustand objects of the trust and its compliance with any other law as required to meet those objects. Therefore, the ld . CIT(E) ought to have restricted his inquiry to the genuineness of the appellantcharitable activity and the objects of the trust. Therefore, rejecting the application on the ground of violation of section 11 and section 13 of the Act is beyond the scope of inquiry or jurisdiction of the ld. CIT(E) .
d. Fourthly, the registration grante d to the trust can be cancelled as per section 12A(4) of the Act, if there are specified v iolations as defined under the explanation to sub-section of section 12AB(4) of the Act. Therefore, any inquiry into the application of trust income can only be done w ithin the parameters o f sectio n 12AB(4) after the registration is granted and not o therwise.Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Fifth Generatio n Education Society vs. CIT (1990)185 ITR 6 34 (All.).
e. Fifthly, section 11(1)(c) of the Act can be attracted only when the trust applied income to charitable purpose outside India that the inco me applied by giving scholarship to the Indian stude nts in India does not imp ly that the income has been ap plied to the charitable purpose outside India. Hence, there is no violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act. It is fur ther submitted that the inco me is b eing spent on the Indian bene ficiary by way of transfer to their Indian bank account in rupees and as such se ctio n 11(1)(c) is not attracted.
f. Sixthly, that the situs of the beneficiaries’ expenditure does not determine the situs of the appellant's application of income because the appellant does not itself carry on any educatio nal activity in United Kingdomas it has not established or operates any institution abroad and has not made any payment to a foreign university. That the char itable activity consists sole ly of supporting Indian students in India for obtaining hig her education. The ld. AR has relied the case of Delhi jurisdictio nal Bench in the Oxford and Cambridge Socie ty of Ind ia vs. C IT(E) [2026 (7) TMI 304] where similar app licatio n was rejected by CIT(E)u/s 12AB on the ground that scho larship granted to Indian students for postgraduate studies at Oxford and Cambridge were ultimately utilized in the United Kingdom and as thus constituted violation of sectio n 11(1)(c) but the said view of the ld. CIT(E) was rejected by the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Hon’ble Tribunal has he ld that admittedly the situs of disbursement of scholarship is within India and the assessee seems to be p aying the scholarship in India directly to scholars or their guardians in India in Indian currency and no amount is remitted to UK or any foreign institution and thus, student subsequently travelling abroad does not convert a domestic disbursement into a fore ign application of funds. Fur ther reliance has been placed on vario us judgments: Jhaverbhai Patel Re search Centr e Vs. CIT(E) [2026 (1) TMI 1646], J. N. Tata Endowment for Higher Ed ucatio n of Indians [2024 (9) TMI 144], R. Mangaldas Char itable Trust Vs. CIT(E) [2025 (10) TMI 1433], Jamsetji Tata Trust Vs. Jt. DIT(E) [2014 (5) TMI 890 and Mandke Foundation Vs. CIT(E) [2026 (7) TMI 785].
g. Seventhly, that the appellate was granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 20.05.2016 w.e .f. fro m 2016-17 and was again granted registratio n u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) on 24.09.2021 for A.Y.2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27.In this case, upon the very same objects and the very same scholarship activity and the assessment for A.Y.2018-19u/s 1 43(3) of the Act was co mpleted without any adverse view on the scholarship activity or any application of fund outside India or on any benefit to a specified person. Thus, the char itable char acter o f the appe llant and its scholar ship model are therefore, a fundamental aspect that has been accepted by the department across successive years.Since, there is no change in the objects or the char itable activity being carried out hence the denial of the registration and approval u/s 80G of the Act is arbitrarily illegal and needs to be set aside and assessee needs to be granted registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act .
The ld. DR, on the o ther hand, while rely ing the order of the ld. CIT(E) has submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal and permission has been rightly rejected.
We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the material available on record. On the basis of factual matrix and the arguments advanced before us, the following points of consideration emerges as under:
Whether spend ing of income of the trust on the scholarship to the Indian citizens for education abroad and remitting of the amount in India in Indian currency is beyond the objects of the charitable activity of the trust or not?
Whether the CIT (E) need to examine the application of the income of trust u/s 11(1)(c) of the Act at the time of considering the registration u/s 12AB and approval u/s 80G of the Act ?
We now proceed to decide the above points as under:
Point No. 1 It has been argued that primary object of the trust includes educatio n, and spending on the scholarship to the Indian citizens for studying abroad.The said activity carried in respect o f above aspect and has been accepted regularly by the Income Tax Department and nothing adverse has been observed during the assessment u/s 14 3(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 and the applicant trust was duly registered u/s 12AB alongwith approval u/s 80G of the Act by order dated 24.09.2021 for the period covering A.Y. 2022-23 to A.Y. 2026-27. We have noticed that similar activity which is questioned in the impugned order was being carried out when the previous two registration and approval were granted u/s 12AB and u/s 80G respectively by the Inco me Tax authority. There is no change in spend ing income of the assessee trust on giving scholarship for studying abroad to the Indian students re mitting the amount in India.
While rejecting application u/ s 12AB, the ld . CIT(E) has observed at page 5 onwards as under:
“On perusal of the replies of the a pplicant, it is ob served tha t t he funds i n the form of scholars hi ps are bei ng tr ansferred to students in India which are ultimately bei ng applied for st udi es abroad. Further, the decision maki ng of shortli sting and selecti ng the eligible st udents for scholarship is bei ng taken by Somerville C ollege (a forei gn entit y). Ther efore, the schol arships ar e bei ng given to st udents bei ng fully awar e t hat t hey wil l be pursui ng studi es from a forei gn uni versity and the decision ma ki ng of sel ecti ng the eligibl e candi dates are also ta ken by a forei gn e nti ty. The funds, ul timat ely a re bei ng applied outside India without taki ng prio r permission of the c ompete nt aut hority i n violation of secti on 11(1)(c) o f the Inco me Tax Act, 1961.
6.2Genui neness of c haritable intent - The selection proc ess al so doesn’t consider any fi nancial/econo mic criteri a of the beneficiar ies; therefore, it cannot be ascertai ned that the beneficiaries have limited means and ar e actually in need o f the sc holarshi ps. It has also bee n observed fr om an i nstance that the sa me beneficiary is gi ven more than o ne sc holar ship for purs ui ng differe nt co urses. Suc h an i nstance has been menti oned bel ow:
Dr. NavyaJannu- Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) i n 2016 and Mas ter o f Philo sophy (MPhil) i n La w in 2017 fro m Oxford University, U .K . wer e s upport ed by O xonian Foundati on.
6.3Violation of s ecti on 13(1 )(c ) o f the Income Tax Act, 1961- O n perusal of the bank statements of t he orga ni zati on, it was obse rved that a considerabl e amo unt of payme nt was bei ng made i n the form of “C ons ul tanc y & Professi onal Fees” i n F.Y. 2022-23 to F.Y. 2024-25 whic h has been tabulated bel ow:
F .Y . Am o u nt s p e nt on a c t iv it ies -s c ho la rs h ip (I N R ) Ex p ens es -Co ns ult a n c y & Pr of ess i o na l F ees (IN R) 2 0 22 -23 2 3, 25 ,3 6 0 18, 86 ,4 9 0 2 0 23 -24 6 0, 19 ,1 9 0 25, 72 ,1 6 0
2 0 24 -25 1 ,2 5, 20 ,00 0 27, 24 ,3 9 0 It was noticed that the expenses i n t he for m of consultancy & prof essi onal fees were made t o the followi ng 2 entiti es:
M/s Canta Co nsul tants L LP- wherei n Mr . ShashankVira (direc tor of M/s O xonian India Fo undation) is the desi gnat ed partne r.
M/s Perfect Acc ounti ng & Shar ed S ervices Privat e Limited
The as sessee vide letter/notic e dated 13.12.2025 was asked t he followi ng-
“3 . Pl eas e provide the d etails of Consulta ncy & Pro fessional fees claimed fr om FY 2022-23 to FY 2024-25 along with rel evant bills. A lso provide t he servic es availed fr om t hese c ons ultants.
4.Pl ease provide j ustification of clai ming subst antial amount of expens es o n Consultancy & Pro fessional fee s.
5.On per usal of y our bank st atement, it is observed tha t payments are bei ng mad e to M/s Canta Consult ants LL P wher ei n Mr. S hasha nkVira (s pecified person) is a director/designate d director . Kindly explai n ho w the paym ent i s not for t he benefit of a person s peci fied i n s ection 13(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”.
The assessee vide its reply dated 18.12.2025 stated that “In order t o operate i n a compl iant, t ransparent, and professio nally governed manner, the Company is req ui red to adhere to m ul tiple s tatutor y, regulatory, and fiduci ary obli ga tions under vari o us laws. Accor di ngly, professi onal expenses have bee n i ncurr ed for the followi ng essential servic es” and that Oxonian India Foundation “has av ailed professio nal and advis ory s ervices fr om Canta Consultants L LP in co nnecti on with the managi ng the charitabl e operations of the OF incl udi ng identifica tion of scholarship and education opport uniti es”. Further, t he applicant has deni ed tha t the payments made is for t he benefit of a specified person u/s 13(1 )(c ) of t he Inc ome Tax Act, 1961.
The assess ee's claim of c onsultancy a nd pro fessional fees is rej ected for the foll owi ng r easons: The assessee incurred expense s in t he form of cons ul tanc y and professio nal fees to M/s Ca nta Consulta nts LLP and M/s Per fect Acc ounting & Shared S ervices Privat e Limited. Mr . ShashankVira, a Di rect or of Oxonian India Foundati on, is the desi gnated partner of M/s Canta C onsultants LLP, raising c oncerns und er Section 13 (1 )(c) o f the Inco me Tax Act , 1961. Not ably, M/s Canta Co nsult ants L LP and M/s Perfect Acc ounti ng & S hare d Services Private Limi ted share t he s ame regist ered addres s: E-20, 1st & 2nd Flo or, HauzK has, N ew D el hi, Delhi , India - 110016, casti ng further doubt o n the genui neness of the expenses on consul tancy & pr ofessional fees.
In view of t he above, t he reply furnis hed is not tenable, and the payments t o Ca nta Consultants LL P appear to benefit a specified pers on, violati ng Sectio n 13 (1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7.In view o f the abov e discussio ns, it is evide nt that there is violati on of sec tion 13(1 )(c) and secti on 11(1)(c ) of the Inc ome Tax Ac t, 1 961. Further, no financial /eco nomi c criteria are consider ed before scholarships are awarded to benef iciari es whi ch cast a doubt on t he c haritabl e nat ur e of the activiti es car ri ed out by the applicant. Therefore, the appli cati on filed in Form 10AB for grant of registrati on u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) is rej ected for furt her r enewal from A.Y. 2027-28 onwards .”
It is thus clear that the ld. CIT(E) was swayed while rejecting the ap plication due to the fact that the amount on scholarships though being transferred to students in Ind ia, but is ultimately being applied for studies abroad. In that regard, the ld. AR has relied upon the case of Delhi Tribunal in Oxford Cambridge Socie ty India Vs. CIT(E)(supra) wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional Tribunal in para 3 onwards has decided as under:
3.0We have c onsidered the rival submissions and have gone through the rec ords befor e us . The primary iss ue to be decided is whether disbursing scholarshi ps in India, to Indi an s tudents for s tudies at a forei gn universi ty constitutes a ppl ication of i ncome "outside India " under Secti on 11(1 )(c), justifyi ng denial of 12A/80G registr ati on. Admi ttedly the situs of disburs ement of the scholarship i s within India, as t he as sessee is seen to be payi ng the sc hol arships i n Indi a directly t o schol ars or their guardians i n India, i n Indian cur rency. No amo unt is remitted to the UK or t o any forei gn i nstit ution. We need also to consider the language of s ection 11(1 )(c) of t he Act:
“Inc ome from pr opert y held for cha ritabl e or reli gious pur poses.
11.(1 ) Subject to the p rovisions of sections 60 to 63, the follo wi ng i ncome s hall not be i ncluded i n the total income of the previous year of the person i n r eceipt of the i ncome— …………………
(c ) income deriv ed from property hel d under trust—
(i)created on o r after the 1st day of April, 1952, for a charitabl e purpose whic h t ends to promo te inte rnational welfare i n which Indi a is inter est ed, to the exte nt to whi ch such i ncome i s applied t o such pur poses outside India, and
(ii)for cha ritabl e or religious purposes, crea ted before the 1st day of April, 1952, to the ex tent to which such income is applied to s uch purposes outside India: It em number
Pro vided that t he Board, by gener al or s pecial order , has dir ected i n eit her case that it shall not be i ncl uded in t he total inc ome of the pe rso n in r ecei pt of such income; ……..”
Thus, it needs to be inferred that s ecti on 11 (1)(c ) of the Act is not at tracted as the bar would ap ply to income applied "for purpos es outsi de India". A s tude nt subsequently t ravelling abroad does not c onvert a domestic disbursement i nto a foreign application of funds. The assess ee is not f ound payi ng anythi ng to Oxford, Cambri dge, or any overseas ins titution.
3.1Three ITA T precedents all directly on poi nt, all in favour of t he assesse e deserve to be mentioned: 1. Jhav erbhai Pat el Research Centre v. CIT(E), 183 taxmann.com 366 (ITA T Mumbai , 27.01.2026): INR pay ment in India to India n citizen for overs eas st udy assista nce "o utsi de India": S ecti on 11(1 )(c ) not attrac ted . The relevant porti on deserves to be extracted as under:
6.We hav e considered the rival submissions perused the material availabl e on record. Admitt edly in present case t he application of assessee i n Form 10AB was f ur nished wit h a delay of 38 days for whi ch it is submitted by the assess ee tha t the order was ser ved to t hem o n 17.01.2025 and the applicati on was filed withi n 30 days from rec eipt of the sai d or d er. R egardi ng the issue of dela y Hon’ble B ombay Hi gh Court in the case of Col umbia Global Center i n India vs The Inc ome T ax Officer (Exempti ons) on 7 Oct ober, 2025, WR IT PETITION (L) NO . 23170 OF 2025, had hel d that, “the approach of the authority ought t o be equi tious, balancing and j udicious a nd availi ng of exemption s hould not be denied merely o n t he bar of limitatio n. This is more so when t he Legislature has , under S ection 119(2)(b) of the Act, conferr ed discr etionary powers t o condone the delay on t he aut horities c oncerned with a vie w to avoid genui ne hardship.”, we, t hus, are of the opinion that, t he dela y of 38 days, that to o expl ained, to be on acco unt of delay in rec eipt of Order from C harity Commissi o ner, t he assessee s houl d not be penali zed for that, even otherwise the authority nee ds to a dopt a liberal and justice orient ed appr oach to while condoni ng t he delay. We this direct t o condone the delay i n filing of for 10AB in present c as e.
7.On othe r issues, which forms t he beli ef of Ld. CIT(E) to r eject the application of assessee , that the payment i n India for s tudy outside India does equa te t o pay ments / expens es i ncurred outside Indi a, does not i nspire any confidence, par ticularly when the scholarship is granted to an I ndian citizen in Indian r upees. This issue was decided ITAT Mumbai in t he case of R. Mangaldas C haritabl e Trust, Mumbai Vs. CIT(E) (s upra), observi ng that, “if the scholarship is grant ed by a charit abl e instituti on in accorda nce wit h their obj ects , whereby s uch financial assistanc e is provided i n Indi a in India n r upees and that too, t o Indian student , s uch a ppl ication of i ncome will happen for educational purpos es in Indi a. The fi nancial assista nce so provided will be utilized by st udents for abroad cannot be read and underst ood as providi ng fi nanci al assistance outsi de India and consequent upon applicati on of incom e outsi de Indi a. Ass essee tr ust al so take n necessary steps to amend t he objects of trus t to put at rest any doubts in this respect.” The fac ts of the pr ese nt matter , bei ng identical to facts of aforesaid cas e of R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust (s upra), in abs ence of any disti nguis hi ng fact, we find no m erits i n t he decisi on of Ld. CIT(E) in tr eati ng t he grant of financial assistance to Ms. A nnushr ee Ajit Kumar i n Indi a, to be an e xpenditur e i ncurred outside India . We, thus, dir ect the same to be tr eated as a permissible acti on by the tr ust a nd not in vi olati on of sec tion 11 (1)(c) of t he Act. A similar issue rais ed in the appeal in ITA 7006/Mum/2013 in the case of Jams etji Tata Trus t Vs . JCIT(E), Mumbai vide order dat ed 26.03.2014 (supra), the tribunal holds that, education grant given to the Indian st udents in Indi a for educatio n / hi ghe r education abr oad ful fils the conditi ons of application of money fo r suc h pur pose i n India.”
Similar findi ngs on vi rt ual ly identi cal fact s are observed in the cas es of J N Tata Endowment, reported i n 166 taxmann.com 126 (Mumb ai, dat ed 24.07.2024); and in the case o f R Mangaldas Charitabl e Trust, r eport ed in 180 taxmann.com 190 (Mumbai, da ted 3 1 10.2025). Thus , we unhesitati ngly ho ld that m erely on t he basis that scholarships ar e provided t o candida tes for aidi ng i n t heir hi gher education pursuits at Oxford/Cambridge would not constitute any vi olati on of t he conditions laid down i n section 11(1 ) of the Ac t. Nor would this activity be non-charitabl e in nature. We also fi nd that all substanti ve conditions for registrati on u/s 12A/80G of the Act a re satisfi ed as we s ee t he assesse e adhe ri ng t o c haritable obj ec ts -education, a long 40 -year histo ry of c haritable activity, a udited accounts and For m 10BB having been filed. We accordingl y di rect that registrati on u/s 12A must be granted f orthwit h.
3.1Re gardi ng t he issue of regist ration u/s 80G of t he Act, we fi nd t hat t he applicatio n i n that regard has been rej ected on the ground that the regist ration u/s 12A of the Act has been reject ed. Si nc e we have dir ected grant of re gistrati o n u/s 12A of the Act s upr a, we direct that the assessee sho uld be allowed re gistration u/s 80G of the Ac t as well.
4.0Accordi ngly, the assess ee succeeds with respect to bot h t he appeal s, which thus stand allowed. ”
Further, re liance has bee n placed by the ld. AR on the following cases:
Jhaverbhai Pat el Research Centre Vs. C IT(E) [2026 (1 ) TMI 1646]
J. N. Tata Endo wment for Hi gher Educati on of Indi ans [2024 (9 ) TMI 144]
R. Mangaldas Char itable Trust Vs. C IT(E) [2025 (10) TMI 1433] Jams etji Tata Tr us t Vs. Jt. DIT(E) [2 014 (5) TMI 890 Mandke F oundati on Vs. CIT (E) [2026 (7) TMI 785].
Admitted ly, there is no dispute that the funds are being utilized on the scho larships to the Indian students and amount is also being remitted in India thro ugh bank s in Indian curre ncy. T here is nothing co ntrary in the impugned order which may show that the said activity is not covered within the objects of the trust as one of the primary object of the trust is ‘education’. Therefore, respectfully relying upon the case of judicial tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(E) has unjustifiab ly denied the registration on the ground that scholarship amount is being utilized for the studies of Indian students abroad and further that the selection criter ia of the scholarship is not transparent and justified. The point No. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of t he asse ssee and against the Revenue.
Point No. 2, it has been ar gued on behalf of the assessee/appellant that questioning the utilization of the amount allegedly in violation of section 11(1)(c) and section 13(1)(c) is an attempt on the par t of the ld. CIT(E) to enter the arena of assessment because the said aspects can always be considered and looked into during the asse ssment proceedings in case any violation of the rules/objective of the trust regarding utilization of the funds/income is no tice d during the assessment proceedings.In that r egard, the ld. AR has arg ued that the ld. CIT(E) has wrongly invoked the alleged breach of section 13(1)(c) while refusing registration because the said aspect can o nly be examined at the stage of asse ssment. It is further submitte d that the provision operates o n the income of a previous year which can only be examined in the assessment for that year and as such it canno t be a conditio n of registration u/s 12AB and cannot thereby be invoked to refuse registration. The ld. AR has relie d on the case of Delhi Tribunal in Pista Devi Education Society Vs. CIT(E) [2026 (5) TMI 993] (IT AT Delhi) wherein in para 9, the Hon’ble Tribunal observed as under:
“9 . We have gone through the pr ovi sions of the Ac t and not es that Section 13 has no applicatio n at t he stage of grant of registration u/s 12 AB of t he Act. The provisio ns of secti o n 13 of the Act are intended solely to regul ate and rest rict the avail ability of exemptio n u/s 11 and 12 of the Act at the time of computati on of t otal inc ome of a charitabl e trust or i nstituti on. S ecti on 13 of the Act mer ely provides for circumstances unde r which exemption otherwi se allo wable u/s 11 and 12 of the Act shall not be grant ed to the extent i nc ome is applied or used for the bene fit of interest ed persons . The said provision, therefore, operates onl y after registrati on is granted and o nl y a t t he ass essment st age, when exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act is claimed is claimed. It is pertinent to note that section 13 of the Act does not, eit her expres sly or by i mplication, empower the r ejecti on or cancellation of r egi stration u/s 12AB of the Act. The sc ope of examinati on at the time of gra nt o f registr ati on u/s 12AB of the Act is confi ned t o the obj ec ts of t he trust and the genui neness of its activiti es , and not to t he application or alleged misapplicati on of income, whi ch is a matter to be ex ami ned by the Assessi ng Officer duri ng asse ssment procee di ngs. ”
The ld. DR, o n the other hand, argued that the utilization of the funds by the trust is in violation o f section 13(1)(c) and as such the trust w as not eligible for the exemption u/s 11(1)(c). The ld. DR has relied the case of Hon’ble Delhi High Cour t i.e. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Charanjiv Char itable Trust (2014) 43 taxmann.com 300 (De l.).
We have noticed that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi H igh Court is having distinct facts as it primarily dealt with deductio n by way of application of income etc.which otherwise is the area pertaining and relevant to the assessment proceedings and cannot be made a ground of rejection of registration u/s 12AB of the Act. We have also noticed that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Om Welfare Society Vs. CIT(E) in ITA Nos. 8278 & 8279/Del/2025 has also discussed the similar issue and decided the issue in favour of the assessee directing registration of u/s 12AB of the Act. The relevant finding in that regard contained in para 10 & 11 is extracted below as under:
“10.Furt her, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana Hi gh C our t i n the case of Ya dvi ndra Public Schoo l Associati on (s upra) had relied on the decision of Hon’ble S upr em e Court in the case of A nanda S ocial & Educati onal Trust case . We observed t hat t he similar view was expr essed by the vari ous courts that at the time of granting r egistration, ld. CIT(E) has to satisfy hims elf on the obj ects of t he tr ust and ge nui neness of the activities, he cannot extend hims elf t o t he shoes of t he As sessing Officer . A t this stage if any ac tivities carried on by an i nstituti o n which is chari tabl e i n nature and its activities are genui ne, unl ess ther e is any devia tion which are not considered to be c haritable , the rel evant exp enditure to the extent of non-charitable activiti es, t he same can be disallowed at assessment st age. In the pres ent case, lo oki ng at t he subst antial activi ties carried on by the assessee to impar t t he educati on merely on certain deviati on of funds to other i ns tituti on which are interest bearing funds, that itself cannot be the r eas on to rej ect the registration. The compet ent authori ty has to v erify only c haritable o bjects and its activities in ter ms of c ase objects to gra nt registr ati on and shoul d not i ndul ge in findi ng reas ons to rej ect the appli cations for grant of registrati on. Ther efore, in o ur co nsidered vi ew the ass essee has b een granted regist ratio n over the years and it deserves to be granted registrati on t heref ore, we direct the l d. C IT(E) to grant r egi stration and if t here is any deviati on, the Assessi ng Officer may be direc ted to do the needful at the assessment stage. Ther efor e, we ar e i ncline d to direct accordi ngly.
11.The other app eal r ela tes to regis trati on u/s 80G whic h were denied for the reasons that the a ppl ication for registration u/s 12AB was denied. Since, we are directed to grant the registr ati on u/s 12AB, we di rect t he ld. CIT(E) to evaluate the grant of regis trati on u/s 80G as per la w. In t he resul t, the appeal filed by the assess ee is allo wed as per above t er ms .”
In view of the above, we are of the co nsidered opinion that at the time of registration u/s 12 AB(1 )(ac)(ii) and approval u/ s 80G of the Act invoking of section 11(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(c)of the Act by ld. CIT(E) has resulted into entering the arena of assessment while co nsidering the granting of registration u/s 12AB of the Act.Admitted ly as per the provision of section 12AB,the ld. CIT(E) is required to look into (a) Genuineness of the activ ity of the trust or institution and (b) The compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being enforced by the trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objects. On perusal of the impugned or der, we have no ticed that there is no material on record which may show that t he Appellant trust has not fulfilled the above two requirements for seeking registration u/s 12AB of the Act.The activities as discussed above, carried out by the appellant, are covered within the objective of the trust and the Revenue is already considering the trust as char itable trust by granting it registration twice and the principle of continuity is also need to be fo llowed by the Revenue while considering the registration u/s 12 AB o f the Act. The point No. 2 is also decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue .
In view of our discussion, and decision on two points enumerated by us in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT( E) has erroneously dismissed the application of the assessee. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. We accordingly allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the ld. CIT (E) to grant registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) of the Act and the consequent approval u/s 80G of the Act within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order.
The finding of ITA No. 5582/Del/2026 shall mutatis mutandis apply to ITA No. 5583/Del/2026.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed above terms.