<?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>Rejection of trust registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancellation under section 12AB quashed; remit for fresh fact inquiry</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92036</link>
    <description>ITAT held that the rejection of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancellation of provisional registration u/s 12AB of the trust was unsustainable. Applying the governing precedent, the Tribunal found that mere origin from a community platform and beneficiary description as a &quot;Samaj&quot; does not ipso facto render the trust for a particular religious community or caste; a fact-specific inquiry is required into whether the community constitutes a religious denomination and whether activities are exclusionary in practice. The CIT(Exemption) failed to distinguish &quot;caste&quot; from &quot;religious community&quot; and made no categorical findings, notwithstanding financials evidencing public-welfare expenditure. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh, reasoned adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:29 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846668" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Rejection of trust registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancellation under section 12AB quashed; remit for fresh fact inquiry</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92036</link>
      <description>ITAT held that the rejection of registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancellation of provisional registration u/s 12AB of the trust was unsustainable. Applying the governing precedent, the Tribunal found that mere origin from a community platform and beneficiary description as a &quot;Samaj&quot; does not ipso facto render the trust for a particular religious community or caste; a fact-specific inquiry is required into whether the community constitutes a religious denomination and whether activities are exclusionary in practice. The CIT(Exemption) failed to distinguish &quot;caste&quot; from &quot;religious community&quot; and made no categorical findings, notwithstanding financials evidencing public-welfare expenditure. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh, reasoned adjudication.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:29 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92036</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>