<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1774 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792571</link>
    <description>A trust whose objects included education in Arabic and Islamic studies, including running a madarasa, was treated as a public charitable trust because the dominant object was education rather than religious worship or propagation. Reading the trust deed as a whole, the ITAT found no evidence of rituals, ceremonies, or other religious activity sufficient to characterise the trust as religious merely because it used Islamic terminology. The rejection of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G was also found unsustainable for want of proper opportunity and adequate evidence, so both benefits were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 May 2026 08:29:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1774 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792571</link>
      <description>A trust whose objects included education in Arabic and Islamic studies, including running a madarasa, was treated as a public charitable trust because the dominant object was education rather than religious worship or propagation. Reading the trust deed as a whole, the ITAT found no evidence of rituals, ceremonies, or other religious activity sufficient to characterise the trust as religious merely because it used Islamic terminology. The rejection of registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G was also found unsustainable for want of proper opportunity and adequate evidence, so both benefits were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>