Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  2. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  3. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  4. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  5. Text Search
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  8. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bills
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
    Act Rules Bills
    Legislative Continuity and Change in Tax Treatment of Specified Articles : SCHEDULE-XIII of the Inco...
    Act Rules Bills
    Statutory Classification of Minerals under Indian Income Tax Law : SCHEDULE-XII of the Income Tax Bi...
    Act Rules Bills
    Modernising Provident, Superannuation, and Gratuity Fund Regulation and Taxation : SCHEDULE-XI of th...
    Act Rules Bills
    Practical Perspectives on Insurance Business Taxation in India : SCHEDULE-XIV of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Act Rules Bills
    Transitional Powers and Executive Discretion in Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 535 of the Income Tax B...
    Act Rules Bills
    The Jurisprudence of Repeal and Savings in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 536 of the Income Tax Bill...
    Act Rules Bills
    Legislative Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in Indian Tax Law : Clause 534 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Act Rules Bills
    Rule-Making Powers under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 533 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section...
    Act Rules Bills
    The Legal Evolution of Tax Exemptions for Union Territories : Clause 531 of the Income Tax Bill, 202...
    Act Rules Bills
    Evolution and Analysis of Interim Tax Charging Provisions : Clause 530 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Evolution of Executive Scheme-Making Powers in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 532 of the Income Tax ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Withdrawal of Statutory Approvals under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 529 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Act Rules Bills
    Legal Perspectives on Condonation of Delay in Income Tax Approvals : Clause 528 of Income Tax Bill, ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Executive Discretion and Tax Incentives in India's Mineral Oil Sector : Clause 527 of the Income Tax...
    Act Rules Bills
    Immunity and Jurisdictional Bar in Tax Administration : Clause 526 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Authorisation and Assessment in Multi-Person Search Cases : Clause 525 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Act Rules Bills
    Rebuttable Presumptions in Tax Searches : Clause 524 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 292C o...
    Act Rules Bills
    Deeming Service of Notice in Tax Proceedings Under Income Tax Law : Clause 523 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Act Rules Bills
    Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice : Clause 522 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 292B of...
    Act Rules Bills
    Exclusion of Probationary Relief for Tax Offenders : Clause 521 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for : Law : All
Reset Filters
Showing
Records
ExpandCollapse
    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for : Law : AllReset Filters
    Case ID :

    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals

    📋
    Contents
    Plus +
    Summary
    Note

    Note

    Note

    Bookmark

    print

    Print

    Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

    Reported as:

    2024 (4) TMI 499 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Introduction

    This article provides a comprehensive analysis of a recent judgement delivered by the High Court (HC) regarding the denial of regular approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) to newly established charitable trusts. The case revolves around the classification made by the respondents (tax authorities) in granting an extension of time for filing applications for approval u/s 80G(5) between existing and new trusts.

    Arguments Presented

    Petitioners' Arguments

    The petitioners, representing various charitable trusts, argued that the impugned circular issued by the respondents, which failed to extend the due date for making applications for approval u/s 80G(5) for new trusts, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (right to equality). They contended that:

    • The classification made by the respondents between existing and new trusts in granting the extension of time was unreasonable and lacked any intelligible differentia.
    • The denial of approval u/s 80G(5) would discourage potential donors from contributing to the trusts, jeopardizing their very existence.
    • Once the respondents decided to extend the time, the petitioners acquired a vested right, and the exclusion of new trusts from the extension was discriminatory.

    Respondents' Arguments

    The respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General of India, contended that:

    • The petitioner trusts did not have any vested right to claim an extension of time, as the grant of extension was an act of benevolence by the respondents.
    • The classification made between existing and new trusts was reasonable, and such differentiation was permissible.
    • The reasons for the distinction were provided in the counter-affidavit, which highlighted the differences between existing and new trusts in terms of their eligibility for deduction and the amendments made to Section 115TD of the Act.

    Discussions and Findings of the Court

    The court made the following observations and findings:

    1. The petitioner trusts did not have any vested right to claim an extension of time, and the respondents had the power to grant extensions u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act.
    2. Initially, no discrimination was made between existing and new trusts when the first circular (Circular No. 8 of 2022) was issued, granting an extension of time.
    3. In the impugned Circular No. 6 of 2023, the stated reason for the extension was to mitigate genuine hardship faced by the trusts in filing applications on time. However, no reason was provided for omitting the clause related to Section 80G(5) for new trusts.
    4. The respondents failed to provide any rationale or reasoning for the classification made between existing and new trusts regarding the approval u/s 80G(5).
    5. The differential treatment was not based on any substantial distinction pertinent to the object of the circular, and the discrimination was artificial.
    6. The impugned clause (ii) of Circular No. 6 of 2023, which excluded new trusts from the extension for approval u/s 80G(5), was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and therefore, ultra vires the Constitution.

    Analysis and Decision by the Court

    The court held that the classification made by the respondents in granting the extension of time for filing applications for approval u/s 80G(5) between existing and new trusts was unreasonable. The court found no intelligible differentia or rational nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the circular, which was to mitigate the genuine hardship faced by the trusts in filing applications on time.

    Consequently, the court declared clause 5(ii) of Circular No. 6 of 2023 as illegitimate, arbitrary, and ultra vires the Constitution of India. The court directed the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners for recognition/approval u/s 80G(5) as within time and to pass orders on the merits within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

    Doctrine or Principle Discussed

    The court's decision was based on the principle of reasonable classification enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The court reiterated the well-established tests for determining the reasonableness of a classification, as laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments, such as:

    • The classification must be based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things grouped from those left out.
    • The differentia must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved by the statute or legislation.

    Relied Upon or Followed Judgements

    The court relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court:

    Comprehensive Summary

    The High Court, in this judgement, struck down clause 5(ii) of Circular No. 6 of 2023 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned clause failed to extend the due date for making applications for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for newly established charitable trusts, while granting such an extension to existing trusts.

    The court found that the classification made by the respondents (tax authorities) between existing and new trusts in granting the extension of time lacked any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the object of mitigating the genuine hardship faced by the trusts in filing applications on time. The respondents could not provide any reasonable justification or rationale for the differential treatment.

    Consequently, the court declared the impugned clause as ultra vires the Constitution and directed the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner trusts for approval u/s 80G(5) as within time and pass orders on the merits within six months.

    The judgement reinforced the principle of reasonable classification enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and the tests laid down by the Supreme Court for determining the reasonableness of a classification.

     

     


    Full Text:

    2024 (4) TMI 499 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Topics

    ActsIncome Tax