2010 (3) TMI 1134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... renewal of approval u/s 80G. The assessee was accorded approval u/s 80G on 9.10.2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2009. Thus, the present application is for renewal of the benefit . A deed of trust was made on 23.8.2005 by the settler donating a sum of Rs. 11 lakhs. On a perusal of the trust deed, it is noticed that there are no specific objects of the trust. The trust was created for charitable objects as defined u/s 2(15) of the IT Act 1961. The object as stated in the trust deed is reproduced as under: "The trust is created for charitable objects as defined u/s 2(15) of the IT Act., 1961. 3. Since, there are no clear or specific charitable objects which can be ascertained from the trust deed, the DIT(E) denied the approval u/s 80....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other order dated 9.10.2007 and later order has granted approval from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2009. Thus in face of these facts, the denial of renewal of approval by the present DIT(E) is most unwarranted, unjust and illegal and this fundamental fact, he totally ignored while passing the order under appeal. Even otherwise also the power of fixing the period of exemption in order u/s 80G(5) has been omitted which otherwise is available to DITE under Proviso to S.80G(5) which has been deleted from 1.10.2009 by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009. Therefore, since the order under appeal is dated 15.10.2009, he cannot make such an order in view of the deletion of the Proviso u/s 80G(5) w.e.f. 1.10.2009 and from this point of view also the order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (29 ITR 781) (Cal.) wherein it was held that to the rule that there is no valid trust unless the objects thereof are specified, charitable trusts are an exception. With regard to those trusts, a great deal of latitude is permitted and the rule is that provided there is a clear intention to make a gift for charity, the trust is not allowed to fail for uncertainty. 3. Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas Vs. CIT (14 ITR 144) (Bom) wherein it was held that the word 'Charity' if used generally or without qualifications or limitations denotes public charity and falls within the definition of 'charitable purpose' in Sec.4(3) of the IT Act. 4. ACIT Vs. Surat City Gymkhana (300 ITR 214) (SC) wherein it was held that the registration of a trust ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ined by the reference to the objects and not the actual application of income. Further, no evidence is placed before regarding the expenditure incurred by it. The details of donations indicate that the assessee gave donations to other trusts. The objects of the trust are too wide. Further, it is not a charitable institution, as defined u/s 2(15) of the IT Act, one of the conditions prescribed u/s 80G is that the institution has to be charitable institution. It is not a charitable institution as its objects are wide and not specific. The wide language that has been employed in the Trust Deed does not meet with the requirements of the statutory exemptions. Hence the assessee is in appeal before. 12. We have heard both the parties and perus....