SARVESHWARA VEDA RAKSHNA TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. CIT(E), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2339/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 September 2026AY 2025-267 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that teaching Vedas is not exclusively a religious activity but rather a charitable one, aligning with established judicial precedents. Therefore, the rejection of the 80G approval by the CIT(E) was incorrect.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust aimed at preserving Vedic tradition through education, applied for approval under Section 80G. The CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application, stating that teaching Vedas is a religious activity and thus not eligible for approval.

What were the issues?

Whether teaching Vedas constitutes a religious activity, thereby disqualifying the trust from 80G approval. Whether the trust's activities fall under the definition of 'charitable purpose'.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G,Section 12AB,Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: MS. PADMAVATHY.S & SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI

For Respondent: Ms. Nayani Swapna, CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai (in short "CIT(E)") dated 28.03.2026 denying approval u/s. 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

ITA No.2339/Chny/2026 Sarveshwara Evda Rakshna Trust :- 2 -:

2.

The assessee is a charitable trust with the primary objective of promoting and preserving the ancient vedic tradition through charitable and educational activities. The trust runs a veda patasala under traditional gurukulam system, where young students are imparted systematic education in the vedas and allied subjects. The assessee made an application in Form- 10AB on 27.09.2025 seeking approval under clause (ii) of first proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. The CIT(E) however rejected the approval stating that: “4. Decision: 4.1 The applicant filed the application in Form 10AB for registration u/s. 12AB of the Act as Public Charitable Trust. However, in view of the points stated in Para 3 above, the applicant is granted registration u/s.12AB of the Act as Public Religious and Charitable Trust. 4.2 As per the provisions of section 80G of the Act, only those trusts/institutions which are registered as Public Charitable Trusts/Institutions u/s. 12AB of the Act are eligible for grant of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act. Therefore, as the applicant is granted registration u/s. 12AB of the Act as Public Religious and Charitable Trust, the applicant is not eligible for grant of approval u/s. 80G(5) of the Act.” The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(E).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The primary contention for the Ld. AR is that the CIT(E) is not correct in rejecting the approval stating that teaching veda is a religious activity. The Ld. AR further submitted that the judicial precedence having consistently holding that teaching veda is not a religious activity and in this regard placed reliance on the orders of the Bengaluru Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shruthiprameara Gurukulam vs. ITO [2023] 153 taxmann.com 125 (Bang- Trib.), where it is held that:

ITA No.2339/Chny/2026 Sarveshwara Evda Rakshna Trust :- 3 -:

“14. Explanation 3 to section 80G states that "charitable purpose" does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. In the present case, the learned CIT(E) has held that the assessee is engaged in a religious activity of teaching Vedas, a Hindu religious scripture, to Hindu students and hence the whole purpose of the trust is of religious nature as per Explanation 3 to section 80G. It is therefore concluded that the assessee Trust is not eligible for approval under section 80G. In coming to the above conclusion, the learned CIT(E) has relied on certain judicial pronouncement, which we shall deal later. It is settled principle that Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in TT Kuppuswamy Chettiar (supra) held as under:-

"The word 'Hindu' itself has not been defined in any of the texts, nor in any of the judge made laws. The definition of a 'Hindu' is also not available in the ancient texts. Even the renowned author of the Hindu Law, viz., Mulla has not defined the word 'Hindu'. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 'Hindu' means adherent of Hinduism; whereas the Chambers Dictionary defines 'Hindu' as a member of any of the races of Hindustan or India, a believer in a form of Brahmanism. A perusal of the history shows that the name 'Hindu' was given by the British authorities while dispensing justice with reference to the inheritance, partition, marriage and other personal laws of the inhabitants of this nation who are not Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Jains. The British Administrators sought the help of the local English knowing Sanskrit pundits who quoted widely the Vedas and Smritis (collection of precepts handed over by Rishis or sages of antiquity in Sanskrit).... A study of the Sanskrit texts in English and the law administered in pursuance of thereof clearly shows that there is no religion by the name 'Hindu'. The word 'Hindu' covers various sects such as ........ If one comprehends the aforesaid facts it will be very difficult to find a Hindu religion having a common faith, and a common founder because Hindu religion takes within its fold not only the four classes of persons viz., Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras, but also other religions viz., Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. I am unable to comprehend as to how one religion can have several religions within its fold. It only shows that the so called Hindu religion has been coined for convenience."

15.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (supra) referring to various constitution bench decisions, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Dictionaries, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Treatise, had held as under.

"These Constitution Bench decisions, after a detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms 'Hindu', 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture

ITA No.2339/Chny/2026 Sarveshwara Evda Rakshna Trust :- 4 -:

and heritage. It is also indicated that the term 'Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub- continent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be construed to fall within the prohibition in sub-sections (3) and/or (3A) of section 123 of the R.P. Act." Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. "Thus, it cannot be doubted, particularly in view of the Constitution Bench decisions of this Court that the words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith. Considering the terms 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' per se as depicting hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism, proceeds form an improper appreciation and perception of the true meaning of these expressions emerging from the detailed discussion in earlier authorities of this Court."

16.

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sri Radha Raman Niwas Trust [2014] 42 taxmann.com 77/221 Taxman 65 (Mag.) affirmed the findings of the Tribunal, which held that to carry sewa puja of Sri Giridhari Ji and carry Akhand Naam Sankirtan uninterruptedly in Aashram is one type of meditation and yoga and is a charitable activity under section 2(15) of the I.T. Act. The High Court held that unless it was proved that the above activities was for any particular community or group of persons, it cannot be a ground to reject the registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G of the I.T. Act.

17.

The Tribunal in Shiv Mandir Devsttan Panch Committee Sanstan (supra) referring to the above decisions held that worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple cannot be regarded as for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion and granted the approval under section 80G of the I.T. Act. In the case of Shiv Mandir Devasttan Panch Committee Sanstan (supra). The assessee trust was set up with the object of "worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple" and "to celebrate festivals like Shivratri, Hanuman Jayanti, Ganesh Uttasav, Makar Sankranti". It applied for a certificate under section 80G. S. 80G (5) provides that the trust should be established for a "charitable purpose". Explanation 3 to s. 80G provides that "charitable purpose" does not

ITA No.2339/Chny/2026 Sarveshwara Evda Rakshna Trust :- 5 -:

include a purpose which is of a "religious nature". S. 80G(5)(iii) also stipulates that the trust should not be expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. The CIT rejected the application on the ground that the assessee was set up for "religious" purposes. On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, the Tribunal held reversing the order of CIT that the objects of the assessee are not for advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion. Worshipping Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining the temple is not advancement, support or propagation of a particular religion. Lord Shiva, Hanumanji & Goddess Durga do not represent any particular religion. They are merely regarded to be the super power of the universe. Further, there is no religion like "Hinduism". The word "Hindu" is not defined in any of the texts nor in judge made law. The word was given by British administrators to inhabitants of India, who were not Christians, Muslims, Parsis or Jews. Hinduism is a way of life. It consists of a number of communities having different gods who are being worshipped in a different manner, different rituals, different ethical codes. The worship of God is not essential for a person who has adopted Hinduism way of life. Therefore, expenses incurred for worshipping of Lord Shiva, Hanuman, Goddess Durga and for maintenance of temple cannot be regarded to be for religious purpose. In holding so, the Tribunal referred to the decisions in the case of Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shisur Mutt 1954 SCJ 335 & T.T. Kuppuswamy Chettiar (supra).

18.

The ITAT Bangalore bench in Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi (supra) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:-

"13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between 'charitable purpose' and 'religious purposes', but there is no definition of the term 'religious purpose' in the Act. Generally interpreted, it would encompass within its fold all institutions or funds, which are for the advancement, support or propagation of a religion and its tenets. How religion is to be understood in the context of the Act, has been examined in the case of Dawoodi Bhora Jamat (supra). If the benefit of religious endowments too ensures for the benefit of the public, then the religious trusts/endowments too will be entitled to the exemption provided by section 11 of the Act. A religious trust could be 'public' or 'private'. Section 13(1) (a) bars exemption to any private religious trust, which does not enure for the benefit of the public. Section 80G(5)(iii) makes a distinction in cases of institutions or funds, which are for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins, etc. Donors to such trusts are debarred from claiming benefit of deduction from income for donations made to such trusts. Conversely, it follows that for donations made to religious bodies, which do not fall in the category mentioned in section 80G(5)(iii), benefit of deduction under section 80G can be claimed. Thus, it could be said that a public religious trust, not meant for

ITA No.2339/Chny/2026 Sarveshwara Evda Rakshna Trust :- 6 -:

the benefit of a particular community, caste or section, will be entitled to claim exemption on its income in the same way as a public charitable trust. 15. We are of the view that the objects and purposes of the Assessee are both charitable and religious, the Assessee does not exist exclusively for the benefit of a particular religious community. The objects do not channel the benefits to any community and thus, would not fall as an institution existing solely for religious purpose. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the Assessee is a charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that it exists solely for religious purpose. It cannot be characterised as religious object especially when it does not make a distinction between caste, creed, race, religion, etc.

16.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are satisfied that the plea of the Assessee to recognize it as existing for "Charitable Purpose" deserves to be accepted and is accepted. We accordingly allow the plea of the Assessee and direct that the registration be allowed treating the Assessee as existing for "Charitable purpose".

19.

In Vaidik Bhakti Sadan Asram (supra), the Tribunal held that propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as the same are more concerned with the lifestyle of the human beings. The relevant observations are as under:-

"9. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax shows that the renewal of registration under section 80G was denied by him to the assessee-trust mainly on three grounds which have already been enumerated by us while narrating the facts of the case in the foregoing portion of this order. At the time, of hearing before us, learned counsel for the assessee has made elaborate submissions to meet all these objections raised by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax while denying exemption to the assessee under section 80G. As rightly pointed out by him, the objects and activities of the assessee-trust relating to propagation of vedic thoughts and philosophy cannot be attributed to any religion as the same are more concerned with the lifestyle of the human beings across the different religions and countries. It gets corroborated from the fact that yoga and self-meditation are being exercised and followed throughout the world by sections of people from different religions and different countries. These activities are thus not confined or attributed to any particular religion and the same, therefore, cannot be regarded as wholly or substantially of a religious nature. Moreover, as per the trust-deed, neither the trust nor its funds were expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community and as further pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee and remained uncontroverted by the learned departmental representative, not even a single rupee was spent by the ass-trust on religious activity.”

20.

In view of the above judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble High Court and various Benches of Income-tax Appellate

ITA No.2339/Chny/2026 Sarveshwara Evda Rakshna Trust :- 7 -:

Tribunal (including the Bangalore Bench), there is no merit in the impugned finding of the CIT(E) that teaching Vedas is a religious activity and therefore not eligible for -approval under section 80G of the I.T. Act.”

4.

We also notice that a similar view is held by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Vyasa Vidhya Mandhiram vs. CIE(E) [ITA No.1286 & 1287/ Chny/2025 dated 09.03.2026] has also held a similar view. In the light of the ratio laid down in the above judicial precedence and the facts in assessee’s case we hold that the CIT(E) is not correct in rejecting the approval u/s.80G on the ground that teaching Veda is a religious activity. Accordingly, we direct the CIT(E) to grant approval u/s.80G if the assessee is otherwise eligible. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 08th day of September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग!र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 08th September, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: NARESH Date: 2026.09.15 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 12:03:58 +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 80G

All 6,482 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →