2013 (11) TMI 1758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....013. This application was submitted by the assessee-trust alongwith Xerox copy of the trust deed and registration certificate dated 18.08.2011. The main objects of the trust as per the trust deed are educational, social activities, medical, etc. 3. In the impugned order dated 23.09.2013, the ld Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I rejected the application of the assessee-trust seeking approval u/s 80G(5) for the detailed reason given in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, which reads as under:- "3. Perusal of the books of accounts for FY 2011-12, it is seen that the trust failed in making expenditure to the extent of 85% of its income. As per the provisions of sec 80G(5) of the Act, it is necessary for any trust that its income w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deserves recognition u/s 80G(5). 5. The Ld. C.I.T. has erred in not considering the real aspect of the provisions of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961. The trust deserves recognition u/s 80G(5). 6. The Ld. C.I.T. has erred in not considering the real aspect of the provisions of section 80G(5) of the IT Act, 1961 though the trust was granted registration u/s 12A vide order dated 26.10.2012. The trust deserves recognition u/s 80G(5). 7. Taking into considering the legal, factual and statutory aspect of the object of the trust, the Ld. C.I.T. ought to have granted recognition u/s 80G(5)as applied for. It is therefore prayed that the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T. refusing to grant recognition u/s 80G(5) may kindly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Income-tax, Rajkot-I rejecting the application u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act be upheld. In rejoinder, the Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that during the year the assessee-trust received donation of Rs. 8,927/- out of which it was required to spent 85%, i.e. Rs. 7,587/-. Against this, it has spent Rs. 7,298/- and therefore there is short fall of Rs. 289/- only. Thus the assessee-trust spent 82% only in that relevant year. Continuing his arguments, the Authorized Representative submitted that in the immediate subsequent year i.e. the year ending 31.03.2013, the trust received donation o Rs. 78,619/- and was required to spent Rs. 66,826/- being 85%. Against this, the assessee-trust spent Rs. 71,489/-. Thus it is ....