RAVIKIRAN FOUNDATION OF INDIA,CHENNAI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeals arise out of separate orders both dated 22.03.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [CIT(E)], whereby the applications filed by the assessee in Form No. 10AB dated 30.09.2024 seeking registration under section 12AB read with section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, respectively, have been rejected. Since the issues involved in both the appeals

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 2 :: arise out of common facts and are interconnected, they were heard together and are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.1 Not being satisfied with the explanation, the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration u/s. 12AB andapproval u/s.80G(5) holding that the activities were not charitable in nature and that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of its activities.

2.2 The CIT(E) rejected the application mainly on the following grounds:-

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 3 :: a. The activities of the trust do not fall within the meaning of "education" u/s. 2(15) since the trust is neither conducting formal scholastic education nor recognised by any statutory educational authority. b. Uploading musical recordings on YouTube, organising online programmes and propagating compositions cannot be regarded as charitable educational activity. c. The assessee failed to establish that its activities amounted to advancement of an object of general public utility as it did not furnish a list of beneficiaries or demonstrate benefit to the public at large. d. The trust deed contained objects relating to promotion of music and research, but the assessee failed to establish that its activities were confined to India and failed to explain its relationship with overseas organisations such as Melharmony Foundation and International Foundation for Carnatic Music. e. The website indicated that donations from outside India could be made to Melharmony Foundation and therefore the activities were allegedly being carried on outside India. f. The expenditure shown as project expenses and purchase of instruments was not substantiated as expenditure incurred for charitable purposes. g. The activities carried on through YouTube were considered to be commercial in nature, with potential for monetisation, limited public reach, absence of recognised educational standards and possible commercial intent. h. The judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee were held to be distinguishable since the assessee was neither a Sabha nor a registered cultural organisation conducting conventional cultural programmes. Accordingly, the CIT(E) held that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of its charitable activities and rejected the application u/s.12AB and 80G(5) of the Act. Now assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal.

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 4 :: 3. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the CIT(E) travelled far beyond the limited scope of enquiry permissible while considering an applications u/s.12AB and 80G of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the objects of the trust, as contained in the trust deed, are admittedly charitable and include preservation, promotion and dissemination of Indian classical music, encouragement of artists, research, educational programmes, publications, competitions, lectures and preservation of cultural heritage. He contended that the trust has actually undertaken these objects by recording rare compositions, making them freely available to the public through digital platforms, conducting competitions, lectures and educational programmes without charging any fee. The recordings uploaded on YouTube are freely accessible to every member of the public and therefore serve a much wider section of society than conventional classroom teaching.

3.1 The assessee submitted that the CIT(E) erroneously rejected the application by applying the narrow interpretation of "education" while completely overlooking that the assessee had also applied under the category of advancement of any other object of general public utility, which independently constitutes a charitable purpose u/s. 2(15) of the Act. He further argued that at the stage of granting approval u/s.12AB and 80G, the Commissioner is only required to satisfy himself regarding the charitable objects and genuineness of the activities. He cannot reject the application on speculative considerations such as possible future monetisation of YouTube content, perceived lack of public reach, or hypothetical commercial exploitation, none of which was supported by any material on record. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR)

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 5 :: submitted that there was no finding that the trust had earned any commercial income from YouTube or that any part of its income was diverted for private benefit.

3.2 The allegation regarding foreign entities was also unfounded. Merely because foreign donors were directed to donate through a separately registered foreign charitable organisation in accordance with the applicable foreign laws does not establish that the assessee carried on activities outside India or violated section 11 of the Act. 3.3 The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) further submitted that absence of a list of beneficiaries cannot be a ground for rejection since the activities themselves are intended for the benefit of the general public and are freely accessible to everyone. Preservation and promotion of Indian classical music and cultural heritage have consistently been recognised by judicial authorities as charitable activities. It was therefore prayed that the order of the CIT(E) be set aside and registration u/s.12AB and approval u/s. 80G be directed to be granted.

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 6 :: activities and that no interference with the impugned order was called for.

5.1 The trust deed clearly demonstrates that the assessee has been established for preservation, promotion and dissemination of Indian classical music, encouragement of artists, research, educational programmes, publications, competitions and allied cultural activities. These objects are undoubtedly directed towards preservation and promotion of India's cultural heritage and advancement of objects of general public utility.

5.2 The CIT(E) has rejected the application primarily by holding that the assessee is not conducting formal scholastic education. In our considered opinion, this approach proceeds on an incorrect appreciation of the statutory provisions. Even assuming that the activities may not strictly fall within the expression "education" as interpreted in judicial precedents, the assessee's activities are independently capable of falling within the limb of advancement of

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 7 :: any other object of general public utilityu/s. 2(15). The impugned order fails to examine the application from this perspective.

5.3 We further find that the CIT(E) has proceeded largely on assumptions and conjectures by observing that the YouTube channel could potentially be monetised, that the audience may be limited, that the content may lack academic rigour or may result in misinformation. None of these observations are founded upon any material available on record. There is no finding that the assessee has actually monetised the channel, earned commercial income or diverted its funds for any non-charitable purpose. Registration and Approval cannot be denied on the basis of hypothetical possibilities.

5.4 The assessee has explained that recordings are uploaded free of cost for the benefit of the public and that competitions and educational programmes are conducted without charging participation fees. The project expenditure incurred towards recording and dissemination of rare compositions cannot, in the absence of contrary evidence, be treated as expenditure for non- charitable purposes. Likewise, the allegation regarding foreign entities is unsupported by any evidence demonstrating that the assessee itself has undertaken activities outside India or applied its income contrary to law. Merely providing a separate avenue for overseas donors through an independent foreign charitable organisation does not establish any violation of the provisions governing registration u/s.12AB or approval u/s. 80G of the Act. The requirement of furnishing an exhaustive list of beneficiaries is also misplaced in the facts of the present case, where the very nature of the activities is to make

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 8 :: educational and cultural content freely available to the public at large through digital platforms.

5.5 The CIT(E) has also distinguished the judicial precedents cited by the assessee on grounds which, in our opinion, are not material. Charitable status cannot depend upon whether an institution is called a Sabha or a Foundation. What is relevant is the charitable nature of the objects and the genuineness of the activities.

5.6 Having regard to the objects of the trust, the nature of the activities actually carried on and the absence of any material indicating commercial exploitation or lack of genuineness, we are satisfied that the reasons assigned by the CIT(E) for rejecting the application are unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(E) are set aside. The CIT(E) is directed to grant registration u/s.12AB and approval to the assessee u/s. 80G(5) of the Act. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 03rd day of August, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

चे�नई/Chennai, SANDEE Digitally signed +दनांक/Dated: 03rd August, 2026. by SANDEEP SNDP, Sr. PS P KUMAR Date: KUMAR 2026.08.05 16:44:26 +05'30'

ITA Nos. 1462 & 1463/Chny/2025 (AY) Ravikiran Foundation of India Vs CIT(E) :: 9 ::

आदेश क! ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF