KHAMPAGAR MONASTIC CHARITABLE TRUST,KANGRA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding the definition of charitable purpose and religious nature was decided in a previous case. Following that precedent, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(E) for re-examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Khampagar Monastic Charitable Trust, sought approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) rejected the application, citing that the trust's objects were substantially religious in nature.
What were the issues?
Whether the trust's objects, being substantially religious, disqualify it for approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) as a charitable purpose.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM
आदेश / O R D E R RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member) 1. Aggrieved by rejection of an application as filed by the assessee seeking approval u/s 80G(5)(ii) vide impugned order dated 15.10.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chandigarh, [CIT(E)], the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. Upon perusal of and impugned order it could be seen that the approval has been denied by Ld. CIT(E) by quoting the objects of the assessee-trust and by invoking Explanation 3 to Section 80G. It has
finally been held that charitable purpose does not include a purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is religious in nature. 3. During hearing, it was an admitted position that the similar issue has been decided by Tribunal in bunch of appeals titled as Shri Sanatan Dharam Venkuth Dharamsewa Samiti in ITA Nos.572/Chd/2026 & ors. common order dated 03.08.2026 defining the contours of religion and laying down certain guidelines for approval of such trusts. Respectfully following the same, we restore this appeal back to Ld. CIT(E) for examination on similar lines. 4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 12th August, 2026
-Sd- -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AS Dated: 12-08-2026
आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF
BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KENDRIYA SADAN, SECTOR – 9A CHANDIGARH
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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026