TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the trustees or settlers could validly amend the original trust deed by corrigendum or supplementary deed in the absence of a power of amendment in the deed and without resort to the prescribed legal procedure. (ii) Whether the trust, on the basis of the original deed and the amended instruments, satisfied the conditions for renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly the requirement that it not be expressed for the benefit of a particular religious community and that its purposes not be wholly or substantially religious.
Issue (i): Whether the trustees or settlers could validly amend the original trust deed by corrigendum or supplementary deed in the absence of a power of amendment in the deed and without resort to the prescribed legal procedure.
Analysis: The original trust deed did not confer any power to alter, delete, or add to its objects. The later corrigendum and supplementary deed purported to delete the restrictive clause and to recast the objects with retrospective effect. Such alteration could not override the original deed by mere resolution, and no lawful amendment through the competent civil forum was shown. The later instruments were therefore treated as ineffective for altering the original trust obligations.
Conclusion: The amendment by corrigendum and supplementary deed was invalid and without legal effect.
Issue (ii): Whether the trust, on the basis of the original deed and the amended instruments, satisfied the conditions for renewal of approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly the requirement that it not be expressed for the benefit of a particular religious community and that its purposes not be wholly or substantially religious.
Analysis: The trust deed showed that the trust was created for a temple of Laxmi Narayan, for worship and adoration of the deity, maintenance and repair of the temple, and holding of festivals, with a clause excluding trustees renouncing Hindu religion. These features demonstrated that the trust was expressed for the benefit of a particular religious community and that its dominant objects were religious. The subsequent charitable objects could not displace the original character of the trust, and the trust failed the statutory test under section 80G(5)(iii) read with Explanation 3 to section 80G(5C).
Conclusion: The trust was not entitled to renewal of approval under section 80G(5).
Final Conclusion: The majority held that the original trust deed remained operative, the attempted amendments were ineffective, and the trust continued to be disqualified from approval because its objects were expressed for a particular religious community and were substantially religious in nature.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a trust deed contains no power of amendment, trustees or settlers cannot validly alter its objects by unilateral resolution or retrospective corrigendum, and a trust expressed for the benefit of a particular religious community with substantially religious objects does not qualify for approval under section 80G(5).
TaxTMI 
