<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (3) TMI 113 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16920</link>
    <description>Renewal of recognition under s. 80G was denied where, despite charitable objects in the trust deed, the competent authority found on enquiry that the trust&#039;s dominant activity was construction of a religious temple and that donations enjoying s. 80G benefit were invested, with the resultant income applied to religious purposes rather than charity. The HC held that, under s. 80G(5)(vi), the authority must examine the real purpose reflected in actual activities and utilisation of funds, not merely the instrument creating the trust; otherwise donors may be misled into subsidising religious expenditure contrary to Parliament&#039;s charitable-religious distinction. Denial of renewal from 1 April 1996 onwards was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 113 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16920</link>
      <description>Renewal of recognition under s. 80G was denied where, despite charitable objects in the trust deed, the competent authority found on enquiry that the trust&#039;s dominant activity was construction of a religious temple and that donations enjoying s. 80G benefit were invested, with the resultant income applied to religious purposes rather than charity. The HC held that, under s. 80G(5)(vi), the authority must examine the real purpose reflected in actual activities and utilisation of funds, not merely the instrument creating the trust; otherwise donors may be misled into subsidising religious expenditure contrary to Parliament&#039;s charitable-religious distinction. Denial of renewal from 1 April 1996 onwards was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>