TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80G(5B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short). 2. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee-Sansthan moved an application dated 24.03.2009 in Form No. 10G for renewal of approval earlier granted u/s. 80G of the Act. The earlier approval was valid for the period 24.01.2008 to 31.03.2009. The learned CIT examined the income and expenditure account for the financial year 2008-09 and found that a sum of ₹ 1,37,185/- had been expended towards Ramarcha Mahotsava. The expenditure, inter alia, included three amounts of ₹ 3,300/-, ₹ 8,800/- and ₹ 6,600/- expended on 10.03.2009 as offering to the saints, taking part in the Mahotsava. An amount of ₹ 35,000/- was also paid to Shri Krishna Satsang Charitable T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been denied. 3. Before us, the ld. Counsel referred to the objects of the Sansthan, which are available on page Nos. 3 to 5 of the paper book. It is submitted that none of the objects is religious in nature. It is further submitted that the seminar was conducted for spreading the moral values espoused by Shree Ram. This activity is charitable in nature and not religious in nature. Therefore, the finding that since Shree Ram is considered to be god of Hindus, therefore, the seminar to propagate moral values upheld by him is a religious activity, is not legally tenable. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High court in the case of Umaid Charitable Trust vs. Union of India and Ors., (2008) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the moral values propounded by Shree Ram, to which we have adverted earlier. These values are of social use and do not have any religious contents. While some Hindus may consider Shree Ram to be god, others may consider him to be only a great person, who followed certain social values required to bring peace and harmony amongst people. Accordingly, we are of the view that the expenditure was not incurred for religious purpose and it was for charitable purpose. Therefore, it is held that the ld. CIT erred in not granting approval u/s. 80G. Accordingly, she is directed to grant the approval on the basis of application dated 24.03.2009. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.08.2011. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
