<?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>2022 (9) TMI 920 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427975</link>
    <description>A temple trust governed by the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment Act, 1984 could not be denied registration merely because it lacked a private trust deed or separately framed bye-laws. The statutory scheme itself regulated the temple&#039;s administration, supervision, and objects, and the record showed the institution was included in the statutory schedule. The Tribunal treated the activities as comparable to another registered temple trust and held that inconsistent replies before the tax authority did not, by themselves, justify refusal where the institution&#039;s status and genuineness were otherwise established. Refusal of registration under section 12AA was therefore not sustainable, and the matter was remanded only for verification of the date of acquisition with a direction to grant registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:40:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 920 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427975</link>
      <description>A temple trust governed by the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institution and Charitable Endowment Act, 1984 could not be denied registration merely because it lacked a private trust deed or separately framed bye-laws. The statutory scheme itself regulated the temple&#039;s administration, supervision, and objects, and the record showed the institution was included in the statutory schedule. The Tribunal treated the activities as comparable to another registered temple trust and held that inconsistent replies before the tax authority did not, by themselves, justify refusal where the institution&#039;s status and genuineness were otherwise established. Refusal of registration under section 12AA was therefore not sustainable, and the matter was remanded only for verification of the date of acquisition with a direction to grant registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>