Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2018 (3) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount of Rs. 2,53,146/- to the income of assessee. On appeal filed by assessee against the said addition, the CIT(A) has dismissed such appeal on the ground that assessee was not registered with Registrar of Societies before 2004 and further assessee could not produce any evidence before the AO regarding filing of application in form No. 10A in the year 1988. On appeal filed by assessee against the said order of CIT(A) before the ITAT, the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 767/Hyd/2010 dt. 28-06- 2010, however, has remitted the matter to the file of the DIT(E) for fresh consideration with the following observation made in para 3 & 4 of the order by stating as under: "3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the learned counsel for assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1232/Hyd/05 dated 7-9-2007 wherein the bench of this Tribunal, on similar and identical issue, remitted the matter back to the file of the DIT(E) for fresh consideration. Under the circumstances, we are remitting this matter also to the file of the DIT(E) with the direction to consider the issue afresh in accordance w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... charitable and religious projects and is for general public. Relying on the orders of the ITAT in Co-ordinate Bench decision, it was submitted that the Trust is eligible for registration. Ld DR however relied on order of CIT(E). 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the papers and case law placed on record. Before considering whether assessee is eligible for registration u/s. 12A, it is to be noted that the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, requires that to be a public charitable trust or religious trust, the trust should have been created either wholly for charitable or religious purposes. Section 11(1)(b) makes an exception for mixed trust which are for partly religious and partly for other purposes, if they were created before the commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the impugned case, Samaj was created by a deed which stated that Samaj was established on Sunday dt. 11-02-1968. Thus, there is no dispute that the trust was created after the commencement of the Act, 1961 and therefore, should have been created either for religious purposes or for charitable purposes. Even though registrations are being granted for mixed trust....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s forever; C. To all all acts in order to achieve overall prosperity of the Strive {Members of the Shri Visa Vad Nagar Vanik Samaj Families}; D. To provide for the education of citizens and to undertake all such activities so as to imbibe in them; irrespective of caste, creed the spirit of service and dedication and thereby provide for upliftment of their intellectual, cultural, moral, physical and alround welfare; E. To help, aid, assist and contribute towards educational medical and provide for compassionate allowances to the needy Members of the community; F. To celebrate 'SEL' (Feast) of the 'SHREEJI'; G. To obtain and acquire such moveable and immoveable properties as may be useful for purpose of SAMAJ and accept unconditional Donations; 8.2. As can be seen from the above, there is difference only re numbering the aims and objects originally formed. The main aim of achieving alround welfare and unity among the families residing in Hyderabad had been renumbered as A) so as to make it only as one of the objects by the revised draft. However, as approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangabai Charities Vs. Commissioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp; 8. Gruh Shanti shall be performed before sunset. 9. Presentation not more than Rs. 51 {Rupees Fifty One} to be given at the time Grah Shanti by the Members. 10. Any dispute regarding weddings or marriages shall be made in writing to the Managing Committee seven {7} days before the date of the wedding or marriage. The Managing committee will give its rulings within four {4} days. 11. All the Members should be present during wedding or marriage functions. 12. Wedding or Marriage functions shall be performed as per the customs in any event if any person desires to perform wedding/marriage {Ghar Mayle} he or she should pay the Samaj Fund as specified in Clause 7 supra and obtain permission of the Managing Committee. 13. In the event of performing weddings or Marriages other than our community; in that event the Member has to pay an amount Rs. 1,251 {Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-one only} towards SAMAJ FUND. 14. Members should not perform Weddings or Marriages of their Daughters in other Towns; in case it is necessary; permission should be obtained from SAMAJ. 15. Bride's permission has been banned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Hon'ble Supreme Court has agreed. But in the present case, this Trust was created after 1961. Therefore, the principles laid down in that judgment does not apply. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh Police Welfare Society [148 ITR 287] (AP). The facts in the above said case are that the Trust was created for the purpose of police personnel, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "A group of persons may be numerous, but, if the nexus between them is their personal relationship to a single propositus or to several propositus, they are neither the community nor a section of the community for charitable pruposes. However, the above principle is not applicable in the case of public employment, i.e., employment of Government, since in that case it is the public that it is the employer; qui facit per alium facit per se and so, to the services rendered by the employees in the public employment, the beneficiaries are the public. Section 10(23C) further supports their view". 8.8. In the present case, the families of 'SAMAJ' cannot be considered as section of general public and they are limited to particular group and not for g....