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 / RSS

2020 (2) TMI 1293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....psu Ray, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR ORDER CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5437-5438/2012 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment(s) and Order(s) passed by the High Court of Karnataka. In our considered view, the reasons assigned by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) need no interference as the same are in consonance with law. Accordingly, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed. CIVIL APPEAL NO.4702/2014 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Director of Income Tax against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court holding that a newly registered Trust is entitled for registration under secti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner may proceed with such applications under that sub- section from the stage at which they were on that day. (2) Every order granting or refusing registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the application was received under clause (a) or clause (aa) or clause (ab) of subsection (1) of section 12A. (3) Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of subsection (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)] and subsequently the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner is satisfi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for some time and also by a newly registered trust. There is no stipulation that the trust should have already been in existence and should have undertaken any activities before making the application for registration. In brief, section 12AA of the Act empowers the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of the Income Tax on receipt of an application for registration of a trust to call for such documents as may be necessary to satisfy himself about the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution and make inquiries in that behalf; it empowers the Commissioner to thereupon register the trust if he is satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution and genuineness of its activities. In the present case, the trust was f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tivities are not genuine that is to say not charitable the Commissioner is entitled to refuse and in fact, bound to refuse such registration. It was argued before us that the Commissioner is required to be satisfied about two things - firstly that the objects of the trust and secondly, its activities are genuine. If there have been no activities undertaken by the trust then the Commissioner cannot assess whether such activities are genuine and therefore, the Commissioner is bound to refuse the registration of such a trust. We have given our anxious consideration to the above submissions made by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant - Director of Income Tax and find that it is not possible to agree with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Counsel for the appellant, fairly drew our attention to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in IT Appeal No.36 of 2013 titled as "Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. R.S. Bajaj Society" which has taken the same view as that of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment. The Allahabad High Court has also referred to a similar view taken by the High Courts of Karnataka and Punjab & Haryana. Apparently, a contrary view has been taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Service Society vs. Commissioner of Income Tax - (2001) Vol.247 ITR 18. That view however does not commend itself. However, the facts in Self Employers Service Society (Supra) suggest that the Commissioner of Income Tax had observed that the applicant f....