The petitioners, consisting of The Chamber of Tax Consultants, Bombay Chartered Accountants’ Society and certain public charitable trusts, challenged the rejection of renewal applications under section 12AB in Form No. 10AB. The Commissioner (E) had rejected the applications on the ground that the trust deeds did not contain an express clause stating that the trusts were irrevocable and that the trusts had answered “Yes” in Row 6 of Form No. 10AB, thereby allegedly furnishing false / incorrect information constituting a specified violation. Allowing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that section 12AB requires satisfaction regarding the objects of the trust, genuineness of activities and compliance with other material laws, but does not require the trust deed to contain an express irrevocability clause as a condition precedent for grant or renewal of registration. For a transfer to be regarded as “revocable” under section 63, the instrument must contain a positive provision for re-transfer of income or assets to the transferor or confer a right to re-assume power over them. Mere silence in the trust deed does not make the trust revocable; on the contrary, absence of a revocation clause implies irrevocability. The Court further held that in the case of public charitable trusts registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, the trust property can never revert to the settlor, and even in case of deregistration or failure of objects, the statutory scheme under sections 22(3A), 22(3B) and 55 of that Act ensures that the assets are applied for charitable purposes and not returned to the founder. Therefore, the Revenue could not import into section 12AB a condition not found in the statute. The Court also noted that the same trusts had been granted registration earlier under sections 12A / 12AA and even under section 12AB(1)(a), and there was no change in law justifying a contrary approach at the stage of renewal. The defect in the online utility compelling a “Yes” answer in Row 6 also could not be used to penalise the assessees. Accordingly, the impugned rejection orders were set aside and the writ petition was allowed. Respondent No.1  directed to  decide the applications of the Petitioners and all other similarly situated trusts, whose orders are hereby quashed, afresh and in accordance with the law and the ratio laid down in this judgment, within a period of six weeks from today.  ( WP .( L) No. 7587 of 2026, dated 9-3-2026)