Tribunal grants appeal, remands for fresh examination due to failure to consider amended trust deed and legal guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the matter for fresh examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT). The decision was based on the PCCIT's failure to consider the amended trust deed, the trust's educational activities, and legal guidelines established by the Supreme Court and CBDT. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with these guidelines and granted the trust a fair opportunity to present its case. The order was issued on May 29, 2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. The trust having multiple objects and not existing solely for educational purposes.
2. Trustees deriving benefits by drawing salary contrary to the trust deed.
3. The trust being a discretionary trust with sole powers at the discretion of the founder trustees.
4. Violation of the third and thirteenth provisos to section 10(23C)(vi).

Detailed Analysis:

1. The Trust Having Multiple Objects and Not Existing Solely for Educational Purposes:
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT) denied the trust's approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, citing that the trust deed had multiple objectives, not solely educational. However, the trust amended its deed on July 26, 2015, removing non-educational objectives. The appellant argued that multiple objectives should not lead to denial of approval, referencing various High Court rulings such as C. P. Vidya Niketan Inter College Shikshan Society v. Union of India, and others, which supported this stance. The Tribunal noted that the PCCIT did not consider the amended deed and the trust's educational activities, including running an educational institution with over 2200 students.

2. Trustees Deriving Benefits by Drawing Salary Contrary to the Trust Deed:
The PCCIT claimed that trustees Dr. Pankaj Garg and Mrs. Vidhushi Garg drew remuneration contrary to the trust deed. The appellant clarified that the trustees were rendering full-time services in professional capacities, not as trustees, and the remuneration was for their professional roles. This dual capacity was not prohibited by the trust deed. The Tribunal observed that the same remuneration was accepted in a previous assessment year without issue and emphasized that reasonableness of remuneration is beyond the scope of inquiry at the approval stage, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. CBDT and CBDT Circular dated August 17, 2015.

3. The Trust Being a Discretionary Trust with Sole Powers at the Discretion of the Founder Trustees:
The PCCIT categorized the trust as a discretionary trust, implying undefined beneficiaries or indeterminable shares, which is applicable to private trusts, not charitable ones. The appellant argued that the trust was charitable and managed by trustees per the trust deed, which was supported by CBDT Circulars clarifying that excessive powers of founder trustees do not warrant denial of approval. The Tribunal noted that the PCCIT's categorization was based on a misunderstanding of the law and trust deed amendments.

4. Violation of the Third and Thirteenth Provisos to Section 10(23C)(vi):
The PCCIT argued that a clause in the trust deed allowing investment in financial gain projects violated the third and thirteenth provisos of section 10(23C)(vi). The Tribunal highlighted that these provisos are regulatory mechanisms to be assessed during annual assessments, not at the approval stage, as per the Supreme Court's ruling and CBDT Circular. The PCCIT's rejection was based on apprehension, not actual violation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the PCCIT did not consider the amended trust deed, the actual educational activities, and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and CBDT. It set aside the matter for fresh examination by the PCCIT, ensuring compliance with legal guidelines and providing the trust a reasonable opportunity to present its case. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on May 29, 2017.

---