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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether approval under section 80G could be rejected merely because the application in Form 10AB described the trust as religious cum charitable and mentioned religious objects, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the technical defect and have the matter reconsidered.
Analysis: The trust had already been granted registration under section 12A and the rejection rested on the description entered in Form 10AB rather than on any finding that the trust was not genuine or that its activities were not charitable. The non obstante protection in section 80G(5B) was relied upon to show that an institution does not lose eligibility merely because it incurs limited expenditure of a religious nature within the statutory ceiling. The material on record and the cited authorities supported the view that a purely technical mistake in the form should not defeat substantive consideration of eligibility, especially where the trust asserts that its main objects are charitable.
Conclusion: The rejection of approval was not sustained; the assessee was entitled to an opportunity to correct Form 10AB, and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi: A technical misdescription in the approval application cannot, by itself, justify of section 80G approval where the trust otherwise claims charitable objects and the statutory conditions require substantive examination on merits, including the limited reach of section 80G(5B).