CIT vs. HANS RAJ SAMARAK SOCIETY
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and evidence, concluded that the donations were voluntary and not forcible. Therefore, the denial of exemption was incorrect.
What were the facts?
The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) denied the assessee's application for Section 80G exemption, relying on the Assessing Officer's denial of Section 11 exemption. The denial was based on the belief that donations received by the school were forcibly collected from parents.
What were the issues?
Whether donations received by a school are voluntary or forcible, and consequently, whether the school is eligible for exemptions under Sections 11 and 80G of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . 05.09.2011 . . . Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate for the appellant. . . . +ITA 1039/2011 . . . The application of the respondent/assessee for grant of exemption under Section 80G of the I.T. Act was denied by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vide orders dated 03.09.2009. The respondent challenged that order by filing appeal before the Tribunal which appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal. It is against that order that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. . The perusal of the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) would reveal that it had taken into consideration the order by the Assessing Officer in respect of assessment year 2006-07 whereby the . Assessing Officer had denied the exemption to the assessee under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption on the ground that various donations received by the respondent school from various persons were taken forcibly by the school from the parents whose children were admitted in the school and since these are involuntary donations, the exemption under section 11 was denied by the Assessing Officer. Taking the same as the basis, the DIT (Exemptions) denied the benefit of section 80-G as well to the assessee. . In the appeal, the Tribunal has revisited the entire gamut of controversy in the light of facts shown to it and matter produced, and has come to categorical finding of fact that the donations were not forcible but these were voluntary donations given by the parents. Since this is a finding of fact, a perusal of the order of the tribunal would show that it has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects and discussed the same in detail. No question of law arises. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. . A.K. SIKRI, J. . . . . . . . J.R. MIDHA, J. . . . . . September 05, 2011 . awanish . . . #02 .
More judgments on Section 80G
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026