Question And Answer
Subject: Section 80G
Querist: B
Answered by:
Tags: , ,
Date: September 6, 2023
Query asked by B

Our trust was incorporated in 2013. Trust was having 12A but not 80G. At the time of new registration U/s 12AB, trust has applied for 80G in Form 10A in April-22. Provisional order in Form 10AC was granted on 30.05.2022. Trust was not carrying out any considerable charitable activity from incorporation. Just primary expense like Bank Charges and Audit Fees etc. It was also managing one school. In that case we have applied for regular registration in Form 10AB in the month of February as the commencement of charitable activity and first donation both happended in the Month of October-22. CIT(E) has rejected our claimΒ  stating that your trust has already commenced activity in past as there is expense and income in your audit report. therefore your due date for Form 10AB will be 30.09.2023. Does trust do not have at least 6 months of time from provisional approval for applying for regular registration? What options are available to us and any judgement in our support is available?

File Uploaded: Not Available

Answer given by

File an appeal before Appellate Tribunal .

Disclaimer: This article is only for general information and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers desiring legal advice should consult with an experienced professional to understand the current law and how it may apply to the facts of their case. Neither the author nor and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without express written permission of
6 comments on “Section 80G
  1. vswami says:

    “What options are available to us and ANY JUDGMENT IN OUR SUPPORT is available?”

    Pending expert’s opinion, to share a few sporadic thoughts :

    Not to forget that the drastic changes in the law , made in recent times,just for the heck of it, are based on ‘political wisdom’ (not with support to find in case law- ‘judicial wisdom’! As such,request to know of ‘judgment’to support does not seem to make any sense – see the point ?

    Also , prudently, not to forget but should keep in focus the actual fact that the intent behind/beyond the ‘new tax regime’ , in addition to the old regime, as openly professed/stressed by the ’empowered’, is to gradually (but fast!!) disincentivice all such erstwhile ‘tax deductions’looked upon as mere ‘tax saving’deductions, having no other objective whatsoever -namely, ‘the societal welfare’in its comprehensive sense ?!

    Sensing the direction/thinking behind/beyond the said changes made / being made and set in a fast track, -founded on ‘political philosophy’ (one of its own but contrariain kind),most probably, the day may not be faroff,if at all when only the contributions with government offish ‘stamp’ – mainly ‘poltical contributions'(to ‘parties’)will be regarded as eligible for ‘tax deduction’, to be permitted as te only genuine ‘non-tax saving’device ???!!!???


  2. vswami says:

    ^ Self- correction”…’AS THE ONE AND ONLY….’

    ADMN: To repeat- How soon you cld be expected to provide in the system itself, for the facility for ‘editing’ / making such corrections, in the text of the posted comment !

  3. vswami says:

    UPdate (of further development)

    CC of Personal Message to contacts on Linkedin under interaction:


    Link @

    That seeks clarity at the behest of Kar. CAs ,on the speciific point as raised therein.

    And that is of no less contextual relevance to the topical discussion on the subj. of the NEW SURHARGE SCHEME. Supplies one more added angle – a spoke in the wheel, – to contest the SCHEME on the ground that the scheme, in its implementation, is inherently riddled with problems galore!

    As may have been noted, Notices are reported to being issued to taxpayers, asking for detailed explanations, who have opted for the Old Tax Regime and claimed deductions mainly under Ch. VIA(!)

    My hunch is, that is highly suspect ; is resorted to only as a gimmick, cunningly to divert attention and tide over, for the nonce, the several objections raised against the impropriety in having levied and collected excess surcharge from all taxpayers , in all income regions !?!

    ANYONE with value addition to make !?

  4. vswami says:

    The sec 80G (charitable trusts) scenario is getting murkier and murkier day by day >”However, the new norms are having the impact of any harsh, badly-worded law imposed to weed out bad actors. “A large number of trusts are paying the price for money laundering and issuance of fake receipts by some. Genuine charities are treated rather uncharitably,” said an industry veteran.”

  5. vswami says:

    “Answer given by Research Team
    File an appeal before Appellate Tribunal.”

    Easier said; but that may not,- in my firm conviction,if regard be had to the supplied comments, – one and only way as to expect a favourable outcome !?

    Why to say so! > Look up the substance /essence of the comment since posted @

  6. vswami says:

    Attention may have to be drawn to the beneficial REVENUE’s ‘Guidance Note’ since released through the ITD Portal. The implications thereof have been gone into , in details,elsewhere.

    IN terms, that has application to only ‘individuals’filing tax reurns in FORM No.2.
    To know What is in store for other category of persons / assessable legal entities, including ‘charitable’ institutions,there is no option except to wait and watch !


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *