Shri Dhar Sabha Vaishno Devi v CITE ITA No.53/ASR/2017.
Brief facts:
The present matter pertains to the registration of Shri Dhar Sabha under §12A of the IT Act[1]. The factual matrix began when the assessee submitted an application in Form No. 10A for registration under §12A, indicating that the society had been operational since October 20, 1970. The society's aims and objectives were enhancing the status of Devi Ji, alleviating curses, creating accommodation for tourists, and establishing a free hospital and Dharamshala in Katra.

On November 15, 2016, the Learned CIT(E) issued a show cause notice requesting numerous documents and clarifications. These included details of property vested in the society under § 11, voluntary contributions under §12, MOA/Bye-laws, bank statements highlighting receipts and expenditure, details of government grants, donations, tax returns, prior applications for registration, foreign donations under FCRA, corpus fund details, and information regarding charitable activities.

The assessee was requested to submit financial accounts for the preceding three years and a justification for pursuing registration despite the lack of evident charity activity. Further, the Ld. CIT(E) raised concerns about the absence of apparent charitable activities and directed the assessee to justify why registration should be granted. The assessee was also asked to provide a copy of the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 and relevant bank statements.

Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(E) issued a final show cause notice, raising further queries regarding proof of land ownership, bank account statements, evidence of establishment expenses, taxes on anonymous donations under 115BBC,[2] and documentation regarding the incorporation of a new trustee/manager.

Decision by CIT(E):
The [CIT(E)] denied the application for registration under '§12AA[3] of the IT Act', citing several issues regarding the legitimacy of the Society's operations and governance structure. One key issue was that the Society's bank accounts were purportedly in the name of its Secretary instead of the Society itself, prompting issues over financial transparency. Additionally, the Society's governing papers lacked a dissolution provision, which is necessary to ensure that assets are transferred to another nonprofit body upon dissolution. In the absence of such a clause, CIT(E) underlined the possibility for violation of § 13(1) of the Act.[4]

Further, CIT(E) observed that the Society's bye-laws confined leadership to members of 'Shri Dhar Vansh' and banned other Sabha members from expressing objections, making the governance structure restrictive and seemingly intended at preserving power within a closed group. This created fundamental issues about whether the Society worked for the benefit of the broader public. Moreover, while the Society claimed to be involved in philanthropic activities such as building a free dispensary, CIT(E) discovered no proof of any efforts made towards its formation or any documents confirming money expended for providing free medical treatments.

Additionally, CIT(E) noticed that modifications in the Society's composition had been made, but there was no written confirmation that these changes were recognized by the Registrar of Societies, raising issues about the Society's validity. Given these inadequacies in governance, transparency, and philanthropic commitment, CIT(E) refused the Society's registration under §12AA of the Act.

Appeal to ITAT: divergent opinions
The assessee challenged the CIT(E)'s order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), where two members gave differing views.

1. Judicial Member's View (Against Assessee)
   The Judicial Member affirmed the refusal of registration under § 12AA, agreeing with CIT(E) that the assessee failed to substantiate the authenticity of its operations. The absence of a dissolution provision risks abuse of assets, breaching §13(1). The Society's governance was tight, as only members of "Shri Dhar Vansh" could be the head, restricting public benefit. Financial openness was unclear, with bank accounts in the Secretary's name and little indication of efforts to build a free dispensary. Additionally, modifications in the Society's makeup needed Registrar approval. Given these flaws, the Judicial Member upheld the rejection of registration.
    
2. Accountant Member's View (In Favor Of Assessee):
   The Ld. Accountant Member, in his dissenting opinion, instructed the CIT(E) to issue registration under §12AA, disagreeing with the Judicial Member. He observed that the assessee had three bank accounts stated in its audited balance statement (31/03/2016), and the bank account with Oriental Bank of Commerce was in the Society's name, not the Secretary's, making CIT(E)'s objections factually erroneous.

Regarding the dissolution provision, he saw that the Society enacted a resolution on 16/09/2016, assuring that assets would go to another charity body upon dissolution (page 95 of the Paper Book). He found that submitting this resolution with the Registrar of Societies was not a legal condition for 12AA registration, citing Punjab & Haryana HC in CIT(E) v Shri Mahavir Jain Society[5] and Madras HC in CIT v R.M.S Trust TA \l "CIT v R.M.S Trust" \s "CIT v R.M.S Trust" \c 1 .[6]

As for the restriction on leadership from Shri Dhar Vansh, he deemed this irrelevant to the registration procedure. He highlighted that CIT(E)'s job was solely to check the charity nature of activities, which the Judicial Member had previously acknowledged under § 2(15)[7]. Thus, he instructed CIT(E) to issue registration under § 12AA.[8]

• Size of the bench: The case was decided by a full bench.
• Name of the members:
  • Per N.K. Saini, Vice President
• Name of the judge who delivered the opinion:
  • Per N.K. Saini, Vice President delivered the majority opinion.
• Advocates on behalf of appellant:
  • Advocate Shri P.N. Arora
• Advocates on behalf of respondent:
  • Advocate Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR
• Interveners and amicus: Not applicable
   

Material facts:

1. Shri Dhar Sabha applied for registration under § 12A, stating it had been operational since October 20, 1970, with objectives related to religious and charitable activities.
2. On November 15, 2016, the Ld. CIT(E) issued a show cause notice requiring details of property under § 11, voluntary contributions under § 12, financial accounts for three years, and proof of charitable activities.
3. Concerns were raised regarding the absence of apparent charitable activities, and the assessee was asked to justify its claim for registration.
4. A final show cause notice sought additional details, including land ownership proof, bank statements, establishment expenses, taxation on anonymous donations under § 115BBC, and information about new trustees/managers.
5. The assessee was required to demonstrate financial transparency and compliance with charitable objectives under the IT Act.
6. CIT(E) also noted that the society's bank account was allegedly registered under the name of the Secretary instead of the society itself, raising concerns about financial control and transparency.
7. The Ld. CIT(E) ultimately denied registration, citing insufficient proof of genuine charitable activities.

 

Issues raised before the court:

• Whether Shri Dhar Sabha was eligible for registration under § 12A of the IT Act despite concerns about financial control, governance, and compliance with regulatory requirements.
• Whether the absence of a registered dissolution clause and the restrictive leadership selection process affected the genuineness of the society's charitable activities.
• Whether maintaining bank accounts in the name of the Secretary instead of the society raised doubts about financial transparency and potential misuse of funds.
• Whether the society's failure to provide sufficient evidence of charitable activities and compliance with statutory obligations justified the denial of registration.
• Whether procedural requirements, such as registering changes in composition with the Registrar of Societies, were necessary for granting registration?

It can be inferred by looking at the issues that Issue (3) and (4) both are questions of fact, Issue (1) and (2) both are questions of both fact and law, and Issue (5) is a question of law.

Arguments on behalf of (assessee society)

1. The CIT(E) incorrectly disallowed registration under § 12A of the IT Act, 1961, on the pretext that the bank accounts were in the name of the Secretary instead of the organization. Documentary proof (bank statements) demonstrates that all bank accounts are in the name of the organization, and even the one account that identifies the Secretary is still tied to the society's official operation.
2. A resolution embodying the dissolution provision was officially voted and signed by the Secretary, President, and members. There is no legislative necessity to tell the Registrar of Societies about this revision before obtaining 12A registration. As stated in CIT(E) Chandigarh v. Shri Mahavir Jain Society, the registration of the society with the Registrar is not a requirement for obtaining exemption under § 12A.
3. The CIT(E) has personally agreed that the society's aims, including maintaining a free hospital and Dharamshala, qualify as charitable purposes. Precedents (e.g., CIT v. Paramhans Ashram Trust) establish that activities like maintaining a Dharamshala and medical treatment qualify for exemption under § 12A.
4. The CIT(E) mistakenly argued that the head of the organization must be from the Shree Dhar Vansh and that no other member of the Sabha may make objections. Case law (Smt. Ganesh Devi Rami Devi Charity Trust v. CIT) indicates that a trust can be public philanthropic even if control stays with a specific lineage or group.
5. The ITAT has concluded in Tara Educational and Charitable Trust v. DIT(E) that the absence of a dissolution clause in the trust deed is not an acceptable ground to refuse registration under § 12A. The CIT(E) has not questioned the sincerity of operations or financial transparency; hence, registration should not be refused solely on technicalities.

Arguments on behalf of respondent (CIT(E) / revenue)

1. One of the bank accounts was in the name of the Secretary, not the group, which raises issues about financial management and transparency. This might imply personal use of funds, breaking the rule that charity funds must be exclusively utilized for the society's aims.
2. The dissolution clause was adopted subsequently, but the petitioner has not given evidence that the Registrar of Societies authorized this alteration. The absence of formal acknowledgment of this modification raises doubts regarding the enforcement of dissolution clauses.
3. The constitution of the group confines leadership to Shree Dhar Vansh and forbids other Sabha members from opposing. This limitation undermines the notion of fair play and democratic functioning in a public charitable organization. The restriction might imply that the organization works more as a private trust than a real public charity body.
4. The burden of proof is on the assessee society to prove that it meets all qualifying conditions for § 12A registration. The CIT(E) is justified in refusing registration due to the absence of comprehensive compliance with legislative and procedural criteria.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Jagannath Gupta Family Trust highlighted that conformity with procedural requirements is important for charity exemption. The petitioner failed to demonstrate complete conformity to regulatory criteria, making the rejection of registration acceptable.

Arguments on behalf of interveners and amicus curiae
Not applicable

Provisions relied upon by the court

Statutes:
The ITAT in the instant case relied upon the following statutes
Charitable Purpose

• § 2(15) of the IT Act: Defines "charitable purpose" to include activities aimed at relieving poverty, promoting education, yoga, medical relief, and preserving the environment, monuments, or objects of historical or artistic significance.
  • Also includes any objective benefiting the general public.
  • If a trust engages in trade, commerce, or business for a fee, it will not qualify as charitable.
  • Exception: If commercial activity advances the charitable purpose and revenue does not exceed 20% of total receipts.
     
• Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes (§ 11 of the IT Act): Grants tax exemption on income from property used for charitable or religious purposes, subject to conditions.
  • At least 85% of income must be applied to these purposes in the same financial year or accumulated for up to five years.
  • Income must be invested as per Section 11(5), e.g., in government-approved securities.
  • Business income is exempt only if incidental to objectives and separate accounts are maintained.
  • Voluntary contributions made towards the corpus of the trust are exempt.
     
• Income of trusts or institutions from contributions (§ 12 of the IT Act): Covers voluntary contributions received by charitable or religious institutions.
  • Such contributions, except those made towards the corpus, are treated as trust income.
  • Includes donations, grants, and gifts received voluntarily.
  • Eligible for exemption under Section 11 if applied to charitable or religious purposes.
     
• Conditions for applicability of Sections 11 and 12 (§ 12A of the IT Act): Specifies conditions for claiming tax exemption.
  • Trusts/institutions must obtain registration from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax.
  • Without registration under Section 12A, tax benefits cannot be availed.
  • Registration remains valid unless canceled; renewal may be required under new amendments.
  • Proper books of accounts, audits (if applicable), and return filing are mandatory.
     
• Anonymous Donations (§ 115BBC of the IT Act): Imposes a flat 30% tax on anonymous donations if donor details are not maintained.
  • Religious institutions (temples, mosques, gurudwaras) are exempt unless the donation is for educational/medical purposes.
  • For educational or medical charities, anonymous donations up to 5% of total donations or ₹1,00,000 (whichever is higher) are exempt.
  • Any excess amount is taxed at 30%.
     
• Procedure for Registration (§ 12AA of the IT Act): Lays down the procedure for trust/institution registration for tax exemption.
  • Principal Commissioner or Commissioner grants registration after verifying genuineness of activities.
  • Process involves application, inquiry, and ensuring compliance with trust laws.
  • Registration may be canceled if the institution fails to meet conditions or engages in non-charitable activities.
     
• Difference of opinion in ITAT (§ 255(4) of the IT Act): Deals with disputes among Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) members.
  • If ITAT members disagree, the case is referred to a third member (President or another Tribunal member).
  • The decision of the majority, including the third member's opinion, is final.

Doctrines, principles, concepts and theories invoked in the judgement:

• Not applicable
  Precedents and other sources relied upon by the court
   
• Precedents:
  Smt. Ganesh Devi Rami Devi Charity Trust v/s. CIT[15] TA Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh's Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh
  The Hon'ble Kolkata High Court ruled that a trust can still be considered a public charitable entity even if the founders retain control over its property, rather than vesting it in the public.

CIT Vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust[16]
The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court stated that "charitable purpose" encompasses assistance of the destitute, education, medical help, and the promotion of any aim benefiting the general public without engaging in profit-driven activities. In a private trust, the benefit interest is with specific persons, whereas a public or charity trust serves the larger public interest. Additionally, the beneficiaries of a private trust can be expressly designated.

Tara Educational and Charitable Trust v. DIT(E)[17]
In this case, the Mumbai ITAT observed that the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) [DIT(E)] did not raise any concerns about the trust's objectives or whether its activities were genuine. However, the DIT(E) refused to grant registration under § 12A of the IT Act simply because the trust deed did not include a "dissolution clause" (a clause stating what happens to the trust's assets if it is dissolved). The Tribunal held that this reason was not relevant for rejecting the registration. § 12A only requires an examination of whether the trust's purpose is charitable and whether it is carrying out genuine activities. Since the rejection was based on an unrelated issue, the Tribunal overturned the DIT(E)'s order and directed that the trust should be granted registration under § 12A.

CIT Vs. R.M.S Trust [18]
The Madras High Court held that non-registration of a trust under other laws, such as the Societies Act, does not affect its eligibility for 12A registration. The key requirement for 12A registration is that the trust's objects must be charitable and its activities genuine. Technical issues related to registration under other statutes cannot be a valid reason to deny tax exemption under § 12A.[19]

CIT(E) Chandigarh Vs. Shri Mahavir Jain Society, Ludhiana[20]
The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, stating that registration with the Registrar of Societies is not a prerequisite for obtaining registration under § 12A of the IT Act. The court ruled that the only criteria for granting 12A registration are that the society's objectives should be charitable and its activities should be genuine. Therefore, refusal based on non-disclosure of changes in composition to the Registrar was not justified.

CIT Vs. Shirdi Sai Darbar Charitable Trust (Dharamshala)[21]
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the absence of a dissolution clause in a trust deed could justify the denial of registration under § 12AA of the IT Act. The court held that the primary considerations for granting such registration are the charitable nature of the trust's objectives and the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the lack of a dissolution clause alone should not be a basis for refusing registration.

Books, Articles, and Other Literature:

No sources were relied upon by the Court in the instant case. There was a majority opinion given by the bench and a minority opinion.

Judgement in Personam

Referring under § 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the Third Member decided the question about the registration grant under § 12AA to the assessee society. Denying registration under § 12AA, the Ld. CIT(E) claimed that the bank accounts of the assessee society were registered under the name Secretary rather than the society. After looking over the data, the Third Member discovered that the society registered all three bank accounts—one for Oriental Bank of Commerce, UCO Bank, and Jammu & Kashmir Bank. This factual validation proved that the Ld. CIT(E) had erroneous logic. The Ld. CIT(E) also denied registration as the society's constitution lacked a dissolution clause initially contained and the Registrar of Societies did not show evidence of adoption of it. The assessee produced a resolution including the dissolution provision, properly signed by the office bearers. The Third Member held that § 12AA does not provide a legislative mandate for a society to notify the Registrar prior to claiming registration. Reliance was put on:

• CIT Vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust
• CIT(E) Chandigarh Vs. Shri Mahavir Jain Society

These cases found that such technical concerns cannot be grounds for rejection under § 12AA. Further, the Mumbai ITAT judgment in Tara Educational and Charitable Trust Vs. DIT(E) was noted, which concluded that the absence of a dissolution clause in the trust deed was not a legitimate ground for rejection. Accordingly, this issue was overruled. Another reason for rejection was that the constitution of the group forbade Sabha members from voicing criticism, therefore compromising openness. The Third Member held that the nomination of the society's head from "Shree Dhar Vansh" did not damage its charitable nature under § 12AA. As shown in Smt. Ganesh Devi Rami Devi Charity Trust v. CIT, a charity trust can have internal governance systems when it is clear that the charitable nature of an organization is unaffected by internal hierarchy. Thus, this objection was dismissed. The Ld. CIT(E) agreed that the goals of the assessee, including establishing a dharamshala and free hospital, came within the definition of "charitable purpose" as specified under § 2(15). The Third Member stated that once the sincerity of operations is proven, registration under § 12AA cannot be rejected on technical grounds. The Third Member further reinforced the decision by citing:

• CIT Vs. Red Rose School, where it was held that while granting registration under § 12AA, the Commissioner must examine only:
  1. The objects of the trust/society.
  2. The genuineness of its activities.
• CIT Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation, where it was held that registration could not be refused on mere procedural deficiencies.

Based on the above findings, the Third Member concurred with the Ld. Accountant Member and held that the Ld. CIT(E) must grant registration under § 12AA. The matter was remitted to the regular Bench of the ITAT for passing an order in accordance with the majority decision under § 255(4) of the IT Act[28], 1961.

Judgement In Rem
The fundamental criteria for obtaining registration under § 12AA of the IT Act is the charitable character of the institution's purpose and the sincerity of its operations. This Tribunal has determined that procedural shortcomings, administrative irregularities, or technical inadequacies should not serve as grounds for refusing registration, provided that the institution's basic purpose remains benevolent and its actions are consistent with that goal. The legislation does not seek to punish charity institutions for non-substantive mistakes, and the approach to registration must stress content over form.

One of the fundamental concepts affirmed in this case is that technical non-compliance, such as failing to tell the Registrar of Societies of structural changes, does not undermine an institution's charity status. Many firms experience changes in management, structure, or operating processes throughout time. Such modifications, if not notified in a timely way to the competent authorities, do not automatically render the institution unsuitable for registration under § 12AA, as long as its core purposes remain charitable. The sheer absence of administrative files should not be used as a reason to doubt the legitimacy of the institution's activity.

Similarly, the method in which financial transactions are handled should not be the only determinant of charity status. In circumstances where a bank account is managed in the name of an office bearer who is functioning in a representative position for the institution, it does not, in itself, impair the organization's philanthropic objective. The important question should be whether the monies are being used exclusively for charity initiatives. Unless there is proof of misuse or diversion of money for personal or non-charitable reasons, such financial arrangements should not be viewed as a disqualifying factor for registration under § 12AA.

Another key issue addressed in this ruling is that the procedure of choosing leaders or office bearers within the institution does not impair its charity character. Many nonprofit organizations have precise eligibility requirements or systematic selection processes for hiring key staff. The existence of such a structured appointment system does not affect the core essence of the institution's activity, provided that its aims and activities continue to serve a benevolent purpose. The focus should always be on whether the institution helps the public at large and if it continues to function with the goal of completing its philanthropic mission.

Additionally, this Tribunal has maintained that the responsibility of the CIT(E) under § 12AA is confined to reviewing the aims and actions of the organization. The Commissioner cannot refuse registration based on procedural flaws or suspected technological problems in administration. The statutory duty of the Commissioner is to ensure that the institution's aims are truly benevolent and that its operations are in advancement of those purposes. Matters of corporate governance, administrative supervision, or technological compliance with other regulations should not impact the judgment of eligibility for tax exemption.

Finally, this opinion indicates that substance must prevail over form when reviewing an application for registration under § 12AA. The main inquiry should always be whether the institution is working towards its professed charity purposes and if its actions are legitimate. If the institution is meeting its claimed charity aims and serving the public good, slight non-compliance with procedural standards should not be utilized to reject its registration. This decision applies in rem, meaning that it is enforceable and applicable to all comparable situations when organizations suffer registration hurdles owing to technical or procedural obstacles despite being engaged in legitimate charity activity.

Appreciation of judgment by the student:
The ruling serves as a vital reaffirmation of the idea that content should prevail over form in situations relating tax exemptions for charitable entities. By emphasizing that technical flaws should not overshadow the essential aims and actual operations of an organization, the Tribunal has ensured a more pragmatic and equitable approach to awarding registration under § 12AA of the Act.

A important component of the verdict is its acknowledgment that charity entities regularly undergo structural and administrative changes, and failing to officially communicate such changes should not result in outright rejection of tax advantages. This precludes an unduly strict implementation of procedural rules, ensuring that real institutions continue to gain credit based on their charity activities rather than small compliance problems. The case also establishes that financial arrangements, such as bank accounts in the name of an office holder, do not inherently vitiate the charity nature of an entity. This clarification minimizes unwarranted mistrust regarding the financial operations of societies and trusts, provided that their activities remain linked with philanthropic aims.

Another important component of the verdict is its focus on the restricted involvement of the CIT(E) in such instances. The primary focus should be on examining whether an institution's aims and actions are really philanthropic, rather than scrutinizing its leadership structures or administrative processes. This guarantees a more rational and targeted approach to giving exemptions. The judgment opens the door for a principle-based compliance framework, where institutions are evaluated primarily on their social impact rather than rigid procedural adherence. Such an approach could encourage more organizations to register for exemptions without fear of arbitrary rejection, ultimately fostering a more vibrant charitable sector in India.

Conclusion
The instant case revolves around the issue of registration of charitable institutions under § 12AA of the IT Act, 1961, and the conditions for granting tax exemptions. This case has served as an authority for determining the factors that should be considered while evaluating the eligibility of a charitable organization for registration. The Tribunal, through this judgment, has provided clarity on whether technical lapses, leadership structures, and financial arrangements impact the charitable status of an institution.

According to my understanding and analysis, this case can be considered a significant judgment on various points.

Some of the most important points in light of this judgment are as follows:

1. Primacy of Charitable Objectives Over Technical Lapses: The Tribunal has firmly held that minor procedural lapses, such as the non-intimation of structural changes to the Registrar of Societies, should not be a ground for denying registration to a charitable institution. The essence of the decision lies in ensuring that the focus remains on the charitable nature of the organization's objectives and its actual activities, rather than penalizing it for technical non-compliance. This approach prevents unwarranted rejections and promotes a substantive rather than a purely procedural interpretation of the law.
    
2. Financial Arrangements Do Not Determine Charitable Status: One of the key clarifications in this judgment is that the existence of bank accounts in the name of an office bearer acting on behalf of the society does not affect the charitable nature of the institution. This principle recognizes the practical aspects of financial management in societies and trusts, ensuring that mere administrative choices do not override the core purpose of the organization. It safeguards charitable institutions from unnecessary scrutiny and preserves their ability to function effectively.
    
3. Leadership Structure and Appointment Process Are Not Sole Determinants: The judgment also underscores that the existence of a specific leadership appointment process does not automatically affect the charitable nature of the institution. The Tribunal has taken a balanced view by recognizing that charitable organizations may have varied governance structures, and such variations should not be misinterpreted as indicators of non-genuineness. The primary consideration should always be whether the activities of the institution are genuinely charitable in nature.
    
4. Standard for Registration Under § 12AA: The ruling reinforces that the central test for granting registration under § 12AA is the charitable nature of objectives and the genuineness of activities. This principle ensures that institutions engaged in bona fide social welfare work are not denied tax benefits due to rigid bureaucratic interpretations. By emphasizing this standard, the judgment prevents arbitrary denials and reinforces fairness in tax administration.

This case stands as an important precedent in tax law, ensuring that charitable institutions are evaluated based on their true purpose rather than minor procedural infractions. The judgment not only protects charitable organizations from undue procedural barriers but also sets a progressive and principle-based framework for tax exemptions, strengthening the legal landscape for social welfare institutions in India

End Notes:

1. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 12A
2. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 115BBC
3. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 12AA
4. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 13(1)
5. CIT v Shri Mahavir Jain Society (Regd.) (2018) 402 ITR 301 / 302 CTR 497 /166 DTR 198 (P&H)(HC)
6. CIT v R.M.S Trust [1982] 134 ITR 555 (MAD)
7. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 2(15)
8. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 12AA
9. Supra 7
10. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 11
11. Supra 1
12. Supra 2
13. Supra 3
14. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 255(4)
15. Smt. Ganesh Devi Rami Devi Charity Trust v. CIT (71 ITR 696)
16. CIT Vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust [2009] 315 ITR 22
17. Tara Educational and Charitable Trust v. DIT(E) (ITA No. 1247/Mum/2013)
18. CIT Vs. R.M.S Trust ([2010] 326 ITR 310)
19. Supra 1
20. CIT(E) Chandigarh Vs. Shri Mahavir Jain Society, Ludhiana (ITA No. 231 of 2016, Order Dated 11/09/2017)
21. CIT Vs. Shirdi Sai Darbar Charitable Trust (Dharamshala) ITA – 38- 2017
22. The Income-tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), s 255(4)
23. CIT Vs. Paramhans Ashram Trust (2018) 253 Taxman 3 (SC)
24. CIT(E) Chandigarh Vs. Shri Mahavir Jain Society (ITA No. 175/Chd/2019)
25. Smt. Ganesh Devi Rami Devi Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 696
26. CIT Vs. Red Rose School (2007) 163 Taxman 19 (All.)
27. CIT Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation (2018) 404 ITR 405 (Del.)
28. Supra 20

Written By: Manvi Bansal, VIII Semester, B.A. L.L.B. (Hons.)