Separate juristic personality supports 12AA registration, but dissolution asset transfer to a body with religious objects blocks 80G approval.

A private university constituted as a body corporate was treated as a separate juristic person and, as such, a "person" competent to apply for registration under section 12AA. Its educational objects and activities were held to fall within the charitable purpose of education, and the charging of fees did not by itself establish a profit motive where the institution was primarily run for education and its funds were applied to its objects. However, approval under section 80G(5) was denied because the governing instrument provided for transfer of assets and liabilities on dissolution to the sponsoring body, whose constitution included a religious object, bringing the arrangement within the statutory bar.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a private university established under the Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 is a competent person to apply for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether its objects and activities justify registration as a charitable institution; (ii) Whether the university is entitled to approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether a private university established under the Haryana Private Universities Act, 2006 is a competent person to apply for registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether its objects and activities justify registration as a charitable institution.

Analysis: The university was treated as a body corporate and an artificial juristic person capable of suing and being sued in its own name. Such a juridical entity falls within the expression "person" for income-tax purposes, and its competence to seek registration was not defeated by the existence of a sponsoring body or by the sponsoring body's powers regarding establishment or dissolution. The objects of the university were educational in nature, and education remained a charitable purpose. The fact that fees were charged did not by itself establish a profit motive, since the relevant inquiry was whether the institution was formed and run primarily for education and whether its funds were applied to its objects.

Conclusion: The university was competent to apply for registration and was entitled to registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (ii): Whether the university is entitled to approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Approval under section 80G required that the governing instrument not contain any provision for transfer or application of income or assets for a purpose other than a charitable purpose. Although the university's objects were educational, its governing framework provided that on dissolution its assets and liabilities would vest in the sponsoring body, whose objects included a religious object. That transfer provision operated at any time within the meaning of the section, and the presence of a religious object in the recipient body's constitution attracted the bar explained by the governing precedent on section 80G.

Conclusion: The university was not entitled to approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Final Conclusion: Registration was warranted, but approval for donations under section 80G was not available on the facts and the governing instrument.

Ratio Decidendi: A university created as a body corporate is a separate juristic person competent to seek registration under section 12AA, and section 80G approval fails where the instrument permits transfer of assets at dissolution to a body having a religious object.

---