SHRI KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST, JAIPUR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

ITA 657/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2043 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: N S VYAS
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 80G; 12AA

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2017-18 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST, KARAULI HOUSE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAATK3696E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.S. VYAS (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29/09/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) DATED 09.06.2017 WHEREBY THE APPLICATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST SEEKING APPROVAL U/S 80G WAS REJECTED. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE TRUST IS REGISTERED U/S 12AA OF THE ACT AS CHARITABLE AND RE LIGIOUS TRUST VIDE ORDER ISSUED BY THE LD CIT(E) DATED 16.09.2016. THE ASSESSEE TRUST SUBSEQUENTLY MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD CIT (E) ON 22.12.2016 SEEKING APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 2 3. THE LD. CIT(E) IN HIS ORDER STATED THAT WHILE CO NSIDERING THE APPLICATION U/S 80G, THE NATURE OF ACTIVITIES UNDER TAKEN BY THE TRUST ARE TO BE EXAMINED SO AS TO ASCERTAIN ITS CHARITABLE CHARACTER. IN THIS REGARD, ON PERUSAL OF THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST FOR THE F.Y. 2014-15, IT WAS OBSERVE D BY THE LD CIT(E) THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS INCURRED FOLLOWING EXPE NDITURE WHICH ARE OF RELIGIOUS NATURE:- S. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS) (I) TO EXPENSES OF JAT CHAITRA 2014 27,30,290/- (II) TO EXPENSES OF JAT CHAITRA 2015 32,20,589/- (III) TO BHANDWA FESTIVAL EXPENSES 5,02,435/- (IV) TO JAGRAN EXPENSES 6,14,154/- (V) TO DAIL SEVA EXPENSES 15,25,763/- (VI) TO JAGRAN EXPENSES 6,14,154/- TOTAL 98,07,385/- 4. THE LD CIT(E) REFERRING TO THE ABOVE EXPENSES H ELD THAT THESE EXPENSES CONSTITUTE 7.97% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 12,31,06,820/-. THUS EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE MORE THAN 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS. FURTHER, IT WAS HELD THAT THE REST OF EXPENSES SHOWN OR CLAIMED IN ABOVE INCOME & EXPENDI TURE ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO INDIRECTLY RELATED TO THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVI TY. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR FY 2013-14, IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH TYPE OF EXPENSES COMES TO 5.08% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS ( RELIGIOUS EXPENSES RS. 54,92,670/- AGAINST TOTAL RECEIPTS RS. 10,80,31 ,712/-). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE PREDOMINANT ACTIVITY OF T HE TRUST IS RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 3 5. THE LD CIT(E) FURTHER HELD THAT FROM THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 80G(5) AND 80G(5B), THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO TH E CHARITABLE INSTITUTION/FUND. IT ALSO INDICATE THAT IF THE INST ITUTION/FUND INCURS EXPENSES OF RELIGIOUS NATURE NOT EXCEEDING 5% OF TO TAL INCOME THAN ALSO IT WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPROVAL U/S 80G. BUT IF THE EXPENSES OF RELIGIOUS NATURE EXCEED 5% OF TOTAL INCOME, THE INS TITUTION/FUND CANNOT BE GRANTED APPROVAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON THE BA SIS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRUST HAS INCURRED EX PENSES OF RELIGIOUS NATURE EXCEEDING 5% OF TOTAL INCOME. THUS THE TRUST DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR APPROVAL U/S 80G. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FAC TS, THE APPLICATION FILED IN FORM NO. 10G SEEKING APPROVAL U/S 80G WAS REJECTED. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AS CHARITABLE CUM RELIGIOUS TRUST AND HAS BEEN RUNNING SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, DHARAMSHALA AND ALSO MAINTENANCE OF TEMP LE KNOWN AS KAILA DEVI JI TEMPLE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT T HE LD CIT(E) WAS THEREFORE NOT CORRECT TO HOLD THAT THE PREDOMINANT ACTIVITY OF THE TRUST IS RELIGIOUS IN NATURE. 7. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN EXPE NSES AS MENTIONED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) FOR RELIGIOUS PURP OSE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 ARE EXPENSES ON JAT/CHATRA 2 014 OF RS. 27,30,290/- AND EXPENSES ON JAT/CHATRA 2015 OF RS. 38,20,589/-. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE DETAILS OF SAID EXPENSES AS AVAILABLE IN APB 6-8, IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT MAXIM UM EXPENSES ARE ON MAINTENANCE, CLEANNESS AND STAFF EXPENSES WHICH IS RS. 21,02,201/- & ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 4 RS. 31,20,589/- AND IF THE SAID EXPENSES ARE NOT TA KEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE EXPENSES ON RELIGIOUS PURPOSE AS MENTIONED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) IS LESS THAN 5%. SIMILAR IS THE PO SITION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 WHERE IF THE ABOVE EXPENSES ARE NOT CONSIDERED FROM THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 54,92,670/- ON THE T OTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 10,80,31,702/-, THE BALANCE EXPENSES ON RELIGIOUS P URPOSE AS MENTIONED BY THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) IS LESS THAN 5%. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS) WAS NOT CORRECT TO REJECT THE APPROVAL U/S 80G. 8. THE LD CIT DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D THE MATTER AND SUBMITTED THAT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G I S AVAILABLE TO A CHARITABLE TRUST BUT NOT TO A RELIGIOUS TRUST AND T HE LD CIT(E) HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE AC T. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE TRU ST HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS CHARITABLE CUM RELIGIOUS TRUST UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND THE LD AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE T RUST BESIDES MAINTENANCE OF TEMPLE KNOWN AS KAILA DEVI JI TEMPLE , ALSO RUNS SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, ETC WHICH ARE CHARITABLE IN NAT URE. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, CAN IT BE SAID THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASS ESSEE TRUST ARE RELIGIOUS IN NATURE OR PREDOMINANTLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE WHIC H DOESNT WARRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. ON PERU SAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(E), WE DONOT SEE ANY BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST ARE PREDOMINAN TLY RELIGIOUS IN NATURE EXCEPT FOR FEW EXPENDITURE HEADS WHICH ARE HELD TO INCLUDE EXPENDITURE ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 5 INCURRED TOWARDS RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. IN THIS REG ARD, THE LD AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON MELA JAT CH ATRA 2014 AND 2015 ARE PREDOMINANTLY ON MAINTENANCE, CLEANLINESS AND ON STAFF EXPENSES AND THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXPENDIT URE ON RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. IN OUR VIEW, BESIDES EXAMINING THE NAT URE OF THE EXPENDITURE, THE LARGER QUESTION IS WHETHER ORGANIZ ING SUCH MELAS ARE IN THE NATURE OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES OR MORE IN A FOR M OF A SOCIAL GATHERING WHERE PEOPLE IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR CASTE, CREED, AN D RELIGION GATHER AND PARTICIPATE IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES. FURTHER, THE CON CLUSION SO ARRIVED AT SHOULD BE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE WHOLE OF TH E ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND WHICH WE FIND IN THE INSTANCE CASE TO INCLUDE RUNNING OF SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, ETC. 10. IN THIS REGARD, USEFUL GUIDANCE CAN BE DRAWN F ROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF UMAID CHARI TABLE TRUST V. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN [2008] 171 TAXMAN 94 (RAJ.). IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE-TRUST WAS GRANTED EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 80G FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-4-2001 TO 31-3-20 04. HOWEVER, RENEWAL OF EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE FOR A FURTHER PERI OD WAS REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE E XCEEDING 5 PER CENT OF ITS TOTAL INCOME ON A PARTICULAR RELIGION, NAMELY, COLOURING AND REPAIRING OF LORD VISHNUS TEMPLE. THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE SAID ORDER AND THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT HAS SET-ASIDE THE SAID ORDER AND HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLLOWING LEGAL PR OPOSITION: 31. THIS COURT IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MERE ONE CONTRIBUTION BY THE CHARITABLE TRUST TO ANOTHER TRUST WHICH CARR IED OUT REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF LORD VISHNUS TEMPLE DOES NOT DISENTI TLE THE PETITIONER- ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 6 TRUST FROM RENEWAL OF ITS EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE UND ER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT. THE LINE OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN RELIGIOUS PURPOSES AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES IS VERY THIN AND NO WATER TIGHT COMPARTMENT BETWEEN THE TWO ACTIVITIES CAN BE VERY WELL- ESTABLISHED. UNLESS OBJECTIVE OF THE CHARITABLE TRU ST IN QUESTION ITSELF IS FOR SPENDING ITS INCOME FOR A PARTICULAR RELIGION AND IT IS SO FOUND IN THE TRUST DEED, THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTME NT CANNOT REJECT THE RENEWAL OF THE TRUST AS CHARITABLE TRUST UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE ONE PARTICULA R EXPENDITURE IS FOR AN ACTIVITY WHICH MAY BE TERMED AS SPENDING FOR A PARTICULAR RELIGION. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE REPAIR AND RENOVATION OF LORD VISHNUS TEMPLE DOES NOT NECESSA RILY MEAN THAT EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS FOR A PARTICULAR R ELIGION ONLY. ALL PEOPLE WHO HAVE FAITH IN LORD VISHNUS TEMPLE B ELONG TO DIFFERENT SECTS AND HAVE FAITH IN DIFFERENT RELIGIO NS AND ALSO VISIT SUCH TEMPLE OF LORD VISHNU. THE REVENUE HAS N OT SHOWN THAT ENTRY IN THE SAID TEMPLE WAS RESTRICTED TO THE PERSONS OF ONE PARTICULAR COMMUNITY OR SECT PRACTICING ONE REL IGION. HINDUISM IS NOT ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION AND DIFFERE NT SECTS FOLLOWING HINDU PHILOSOPHY DO VISIT TEMPLES OF LORD VISHNU, B E THAT JAINS, SIKHS, BRAHMINS ETC. THERE IS NO WATER TIGHT COMPARTMENT B ETWEEN DIFFERENT CASTES OR SECTS FOLLOWING ONE PARTICULAR RELIGION. FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA UNDER ARTIC LE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THEREFORE, TAKING SUCH A PED ANTIC AND NARROW APPROACH, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CHARACTER OF THE C HARITABLE TRUST IS LOST IF ONE PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE IS MADE FOR REPAIR AN D RENOVATION OF LORD VISHNUS TEMPLE AND THAT TOO BY WAY OF CONTRIBUTION TO ANOTHER TRUST. A ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 7 PERUSAL OF THE TRUST DEED OF THE PETITIONER PRODUCE D ON RECORD SHOWS THAT OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST WAS CLEARLY CHARITABLE AND WAS NOT FOR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION EVEN WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY. N OTHING HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE PETITION ER-TRUST HAS BEEN CONSTANTLY SPENDING MONEY FOR A PARTICULAR RELIGION . ONE SHOULD DISCERN AND IMBIBE WITH GREAT RESPECTS THE OBSERVATIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SRI JAGANNATH JEWS CASE (SUPRA). 32. THIS COURT DOES NOT SEE ANY LEANING IN FAVOUR O F ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION IN TRUST DEED OF THE PETITIONER-TRUST AND THEREFORE, ONCE SUCH EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TRUST, UPON SCRUTINY OF ITS APPLICATION AND IT HELD THE FIELD FOR AT LEAST THRE E YEARS AS IS SHOWN BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER ITSELF AND TRUST DEED INDICATES THAT SAID TRUST WAS CONSTITUTED LONG BACK ON 27-8-1963 AND HAS BEEN CAR RYING ON SUCH CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES, THIS COURT FINDS NO JUSTIFIC ATION FOR REJECTING ITS RENEWAL UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT WHICH IS A MAT TER OF RIGHT. THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 80G(5) READ WITH EXPLANATION 3 DO NOT STAND VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE. 33. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UPPER GANGES SUGAR MIL LS (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS HELD ON THE BASIS OF ONE PARTICULAR CLAUSE ( 2)(H) OF THE TRUST-DEED WHICH READ 'TO ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND TO GRANT AND /OR AID TO PUBLIC PLACES OF WORSHIP AND PRAYER HALLS'. THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT DEALING WITH EXPLANATION 4 OF SECTION 80G(5) HELD AS UNDER : 'TO REITERATE, EXPLANATION 3 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE A SCERTAINMENT OF WHETHER THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF THE INSTITUTION OR FUNDS CHARITABLE PURPOSE IS OF RELIGIOUS NATURE. IF IT DI D, IT WOULD READ ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 8 DIFFERENTLY. IT REQUIRES THE ASCERTAINMENT OF WHETH ER THERE IS ONE PURPOSE WITHIN THE INSTITUTION OR FUNDS OVERALL CH ARITABLE PURPOSE WHICH IS WHOLLY, OR SUBSTANTIALLY WHOLLY, OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE. THERE IS LITTLE DOUBT THAT CLAUSE 2(H) OF THE TRUST DEED WHICH PERM ITS THE TRUSTEES TO SUPPORT PRAYER HALLS AND PLACES OF WORSHIP SETS OUT A PURPOSE THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF WHICH IS OF RELIGIOUS NATURE, AND THIS HAS NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY DISPUTED. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW , THE TRUST AND THE DONATION BY THE ASSESSEE TO IT FALL OUTSIDE THE SCO PE OF SECTION 80G.' (P. 582) THE AFORESAID CASE IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE TRUST DEE D IN THE PRESENT CASE WHICH INDICATES THAT INCOME OF THE PETITIONER-TRUST WAS TO BE APPLIED WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FOR ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION . THEREFORE, THE SAID CASE HAS BEEN CLEARLY WRONGLY APPLIED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN SRI MARUDHAR KESARI STHANAKWASI JA IN YADGAR SAMITI TRUSTS CASE (SUPRA) ALSO RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE SAID CASE. THUS, THE JUDGMENTS CITED AND RELIED UPON BY THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS. SINCE THE LAW IN THE CASE OF UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS (SUPRA) WAS LAID DOWN WHILE DEALING THE CASE OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF DONOR SO ALSO IN THE CASE OF SRI MARUDHAR KESARI STHANAKWASI JAIN YADGAR SAMITI TRUST (SUPRA) BY THIS COURT, THOSE JUDGMENTS DO NOT ADVANCE CAUSE OF THE REVENUE . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE PETITIONER FULLY SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER WHEN THE COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT IT IS THE DOMINANT OBJE CT OF THE ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 9 TRUST WHICH IS IMPORTANT AND CONTRIBUTION AND EXPEN DITURE INCURRED BY THE PETITIONER-TRUST HAS TO BE VIEWED I N LIGHT OF THE OBJECTS WITH WHICH CHARITABLE TRUST IN QUESTION WAS CONSTITUTED. 34. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEX. 10 DATED 16-12-2004 IS QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND THE PETITIONER-TRUST SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE REGISTERED U NDER SECTION 80G OF THE ACT THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD AFTER 1-4-2004 WITH A LL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. ( EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 11. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(E) TO EXAMINE THE SAME A FRE SH TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY TH E HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF UMAID CHARITABLE TRUST (SUPRA ). IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TRU ST IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/10/2017 SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR FOE FLAG ;KNO (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/10/2017. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST, KARAULI HOUSE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR. ITA NO. 657/JP/2017 SHREE KAILA DEVI TEMPLE TRUST VS. VS. CIT(E) 10 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 657/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR