Kaushalya Bai Srinivas Lakhotiya Charitable Trust, Hyderabad V. Director of Income-Tax (Exemtions), Hyderabad

ITA 852/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91707 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SUDHAKAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 80G; 12A; 12AA; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.851/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. PAN AABTR2045M VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.852/HYD/2014 KAUSHALYA BAI SRINIVAS LAKHOTIYA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. PAN AACTK2306B VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.853/HYD/2014 KANTA BAI GOVIND KUMAR LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. PAN AABTK2243C VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA.NO.859/HYD/2014 AYODHYA BAI DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. PAN AACTA0428J VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. S. RAMA RAO FOR REVENUE : MR. D. SUDHAKAR RAO DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2015 2 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD ORDER PER BENCH : THESE FOUR APPEALS ARE FILED BY FOUR DIFFERENT ASSESSEE-TRUSTS VIZ., (1) RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD (2) KAUSHALYA BAI SRINI VAS LAKHOTIYA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD (3) KANTA BAI GOVIND KUMAR LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD (4) AYODHY A BAI DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD AGAIN ST THE IDENTICAL ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEM PTIONS), HYDERABAD DATED 26.02.2014, IN DENYING THE REGISTRA TION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SIN CE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THE APPE ALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THE SIN GLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY SATED, THE ASSESSEE-TRUSTS HAD FILED AN APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A SEEKING REGISTRATION UND ER SECTION 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AUTHORISED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED REPLY TO THE QUESTIONNA IRE RAISED BY THE O/O. DIT(E). HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DIT(E) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE-TRUSTS AND REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE-TRUSTS AND PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER : 2. FROM THE TRUST DEED, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE TRUST HAS BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE OBJECTS. TH E OBJECT CLAUSE (A) MENTIONED UNDER PARA 9 OF THE TRUST DEED WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS RELIGIOUS PURPOSE ON PART OF THE APPL ICANT TRUST IS REPRODUCED S UNDER : 9(A) TO ESTABLISH AND MANAGE DHARMASHALA, CHOULTRI ES OR REST HOUSES. DONATION TO THE TEMPLES, MAINTAINS OF THE TEMPLES. DONATION TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF ROOM AT V ARIOUS PILGRIMS PLACES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PILGRIMS, TOURIS TS. 3 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD MAKING DONATION TO TEMPLE AND MAINTENANCE OF TEMPLE IS CLEARLY OF RELIGIOUS NATURE. FURTHER, MAK ING DONATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ROOMS AT DIFFERENT PIL GRIM PLACES FOR THE BENEFIT OF PILGRIMS VISITING SUCH PI LGRIM CENTERS IS ALSO CLEARLY OF RELIGIOUS NATURE. THUS, THE APPLICANT TRUST IN THIS CASE HAS BOTH RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE OBJECTS I.E., HAS GOT MIXED OBJECTS, AND SINCE IT HAS BEEN FORMED ON 18/11/2006 LE., AFTER 1 - 4-1962, UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, IT DOES NOT QUALIF Y EITHER AS A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS TRUST OR AS A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST AND HENCE ITS INCOME WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.11 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION L1(1)(A ) OF THE ACT, WHERE, REFERENCE IS MADE SPECIFICALLY TO WORDS WHOLLY FOR 'CHARITABLE PURPOSES' OR 'RELIGIOU S PURPOSES', UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, HAVING REGARD T O THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 12A(1)(AA) OF THE ACT R.W .S. 11(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE TRUST, IN THIS CA SE, WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION UJS.12AA OF THE ACT. FURTHERMORE, UNDER THE PREVAILING FACTS, IE., IN THE FACE OF SUCH MIXED OBJECTIVES, HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN STATE OF KERALA V. M.P. SHANTI VARMA JAIN(1998) 231 ITR 787(SC) AND CIT V. PALGHAT SHADI MAHAL TRUST (2002) 254 ITR 212 (SC) AND CIT V. UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LTD. (1997) 227 ITR 578 AND OF THE HON'BLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT IN GHULAM MOHIDDIN TRUST VS. CIT [2001] 248 ITR 587, THE ABOVE TRUST, WHOSE INCOME WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION, WOULD CONSEQUENTLY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS PERTINE NT TO REFER TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION MADE BY THE HON BLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION IN GHULAM MOHIDDIN TRUST VS. CIT (SUPRA). .. BECAUSE THE LAW IS WELL-SETTLED THAT IF THERE ARE SEVERAL OBJECTS OF THE TRUST, SOME OF WHICH ARE CHARITABLE AND SOME NON-CHARITABLE AND THE TRUSTEES IN THEIR DISCRETION ARE TO APPLY THE INCOME TO ANY OF THE OBJECTS, THE WHOLE TRUST WOULD FALL AND NO PART OF ITS INCOME WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. THE REASON IS THAT IN SUCH A CASE NO DEFINITE PART OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS INCOME IS ALLOCATED 'FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE TRUSTEES TO APPLY ITS INCOME TO ANY OF THE NON-CHARITABLE OBJECTS OR 4 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD RELIGIOUS PURPOSES.' (AT PAGE;593-594) 2.1. .. IT MAY BE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT, WHILE CLARIFYING ON SECTION 11 OF THE ACT, WHICH DEALS WI TH EXEMPTION OF INCOME IN CASE OF A PUBLIC TRUST OR INSTITUTION, AND IN WHICH THERE IS REFERENCE TO TER M 'CHARLTABLE PURPOSES' OR 'RELIGIOUS' PURPOSES, HON' BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, IN THEIR DECISION IN SHR I D.S.D.B. TRUST VS CIT(MP) (2008) 302 ITR 321, HELD THAT, WHEN SUCH A PURPOSE IS SHOWN THAT REGISTRATIO N CAN BE GRANTED. THE PERTINENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD, AT PAGE 324 OF T HE SAID DECISION, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SINCE 11 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR EXEMPTIONS TO THE TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE ACT, IT IS PRIMARILY THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 11 THAT WILL DOMINATE OR PREVAIL OVER OTHER CONSIDERATION. SECTION 11 PROVIDES FOR THIS EXEMPTION ONLY IF THE PROPERTY HELD IS FOR CHARITABLE OR RE1IGIOUS PURPOSES. IT. IS ONLY WHEN SUCH A PURPOSE IS SHOWN THAT REGISTRATION CAN BE GRANTED. 2.2. FROM THE ABOVE, THUS, IT FOLLOWS THAT ONL Y WHEN THE INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY HELD UNDER A TRUST , IS MEANT FOR APPLICATION WHOLLY FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES OR WHOLLY FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, THAT REGISTRATION CAN BE GRANTED TO THAT TRUST U/S.12AA OF THE ACT TO SUCH TRUST. CONSEQUENTLY, IT FOLLOWS THA T, IF THE INCOME IN CASE OF A TRUST OR INSTITUTION, IS ME ANT FOR APPLICATION FOR BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS PURPOSES, UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, SUCH TRUST OR INSTITUTION WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE EMPHASIS ON SPECI FIC PURPOSE OF THE TRUST, I.E., EITHER 'CHARITABLE' OR 'RELIGIOUS', IN THE CONTEXT OF GRANTING OF REGISTRA TION, HAS BEEN STRESSED BY THE HON'BLE M.P HIGH COURT IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT OBSERVATION MADE AT PAGE 325 OF TH E SAID DECISION. THE PERTINENT OBSERVATION OF THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT, IN THIS REGARD, IS AS UNDER : IT IS WHEN IT IS PROVED THAT THE PROPERTY IS CONSECRATED FOR CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES THAT THE TRUST MAY BECOME ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS. 5 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD 3. FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE APPLICANT TRUST THUS, CANNOT BE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT. HENCE, REGISTRATION SOUGHT U/S 12AA OF THE ACT JS REFUSED TO THE ABOVE TRUST. THUS, THE SAID APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10A IS REJECTED. 3. THE DIT(E) THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE- TRUSTS CANNOT BE GRANTED REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT AND THE APPLICATION IN FORM 10A WAS REJECTE D. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEES HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPE ALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA.NO.851/HYD/2014 IN THE CASE OF RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED DIT(E) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED DIT(E) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIVI TIES OF THE APPELLANT INCLUDE BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS . THE DIT(E) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT HAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE ONLY CHARITABLE AND DO NOT INCLUDE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. 3. IN THE ALTERNATE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTION, THE DIT(E) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT SIMPLY BECAUSE BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIO US ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN. 4. THE DIT(E) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT THE ACTIVITIES C ARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT ARE ONLY CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND OUGHT TO HAVE GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S.12AA OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. S. RAMA RA O RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 6 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD SOCIAL SERVICE CENTRE, SRIKAKULAM VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, VISAKHAPATNAM ITA.NO.299/VIZAG/1998 DATED 24.01.200 0. FURTHER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, NAGPUR BENCH IN ITA.NO.223/NAG/20 09 DATED 11.10.2012 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOW S : 12. EVEN WE NOTED THAT ALL THE BUILDING MAINTENAN CE EXPENSES, FREE FOOD EXPENSES AND FESTIVAL, PRAYER A ND DAILY EXPENSES CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE THE ONE INC URRED FOR RELIGIOUS OBJECT ,EVEN IF THE OBJECT IS REGARDE D TO BE RELIGIOUS ONE. IT IS NOT DENIED THAT IN THE BUILDIN G THE ASSESSE WAS CARRYING YOGA CENTRE, TAILORING TRAININ G CENTRE AS WELL AS FOOD FOR THE NEEDY AND OPTICAL CENTRE FO R THE POOR. 13. EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 80G(V) STATES THAT 'IN THIS SECTION/ 'CHARITABLE PURPOSE' DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PURPOSE THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE WHOLE OF WHI CH IS OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE. 'THIS EXPLANATION TAKES NOTE OF THE FACT THAT AN INSTITUTION OR FUND SHALL BE FOR A CHA RITABLE PURPOSE AND MAY HAVE A NUMBER OF OBJECTS. IF ANYONE OF THESE OBJECTS IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY WHOLLY OF A RELIGIOUS NATURE, THE INSTITUTION OR FUNDS FALLS OU TSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 80G AND THE DONATION TO IT WILL NO T MAKE THE DONOR ENTITLED FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80G. THE OBJECTS AS PER EXPLANATION 3 MUST BE WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALL Y WHOLE OF WHICH MUST BE OF RELIGIOUS NATURE. THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE EVIDENCE INCLUDING THE OBJECT S AND HOW THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY IT. THE ON US, IN OUR OPINION, GETS SHIFTED ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE T HAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST IS WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE R ELIGIOUS PURPOSE. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE THAT THE WHOLE OR SUBSTANTIALLY WHOLE OF THE OBJECT OF THE TRUST IS TO PROPAGATE OR ADVANCE SUPPORT TO A PARTI CULAR SECT. WE MAY OBSERVE THAT HINDUISM IS A WAY OF LIFE OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY. IT AS SUCH IS NOT A RELIGION. IN THIS REGARD WE .RELY ON THE CASE OF T T KUPPUSWAMY CHETTIAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1987) 100 LW 1031 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD' THE WORD 'HINDU' HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED IN ANY OF THE TEXTS NOR IN JUDGMENT MADE LAW. THE WORD WAS GIVEN BY BRITISH ADMINISTRATORS TO INHABITANTS OF INDIA, WHO WERE NOT CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, PARSIS OR JEWS. THE ALLEGE D HINDU RELIGION CONSISTS OF FOUR CASTES BRAHMINS, KSHATRIYAS, VAISHYAS AND SUDRAS BELONGING ULTIMATEL Y TO 7 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD TWO SCHOOLS OF LAW, MITAKSHARAS AND DAYABHAGA. THER E IS, HOWEVER, NO RELIGION BV THE NAME 'HINDU. IT ONLY SHOWS THAT SO CALLED HINDU RELIGION HAS BEEN CALLED FOR CONVENIENCE.' CIT MUST BE AWARE OF THAT THE HINDU CONSISTS OF A NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES HAVING THE DIFF ERENT GODS WHO ARE BEING WORSHIPPED IN A DIFFERENT MANNER , DIFFERENT RITUALS, DIFFERENT ETHICAL CODES. EVEN TH E WORSHIP OF GOD IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR A PERSON WHO HAS ADOPTE D HINDUISM WAY OF LIFE. THUS, HINDUISM HOLDS WITHIN I TS FOLD MEN OF DIVERGENT VIEWS AND TRADITIONS WHO HAVE VERY LITTLE IN COMMON EXCEPT A VAGUE FAITH IN WHAT MAY BE CALLE D THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE HINDUISM. THE WORD 'COMMUNITY' MEANS A SOCIETY OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE SAME PLACE, UNDER THE SAME LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND WHO HAVE COMMON RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. THIS MAY APPLY TO CHRISTIANI TY OR MOSLEM BUT NOT TO HINDUISM. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HINDU IS A SEPARATE COMMUNITY OR A SEPARATE RE LIGION. TECHNICALLY HINDU IS NEITHER A RELIGION NOR A COMMU NITY. THEREFORE, EXPENSES INCURRED FOR WORSHIPPING OF LOR D SHIVA, , HANUMAN, GODDESS DURGA AND FOR MAINTENANCE OF TEMPLE CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPO SE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING THE APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE TRUST U/S. 80G OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT AND DIR ECT THE CIT TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUST U/S.80G (5)(VI) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE DIT(E ) HAS CITED A DECISION WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTI ON 80G AND NOT SECTION 12AA. FURTHER, SECTION 12A DOES NOT PRO HIBIT A CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES OF AN INSTITUTION FROM HAVING MIXED OBJECTS I.E., BOTH CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS. IN RESPECT OF THIS CONTENTION, WE RELY ON THE FOLLOWING CASES : 1. KASYAPA VEDA RESEARCH FOUNDATION VS. CIT 11 ITR 468 (TRIB.) (COCHIN). 2. VANITA VISHRAM TRUST VS. CCIT AND ANOTHER 327 ITR 121. 8 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD 3. ADDL. DIT(E) VS. ISLAMIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION 21 (TR IB.) 588 (MUM.) 4. THE SOCIETY OF PRESENTATION SISTERS AND OTHERS VS. ITO 318 ITR (AT) 287. 6. WITH RESPECT TO MAINTENANCE OF THE TEMPLE, THE DIT(E) OPINED THAT IT IS CLEARLY OF RELIGIOUS NATUR E. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MAINTENANCE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE BUILDING RELATE TO THE CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES AND NO T THE RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. SINCE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT FOOD IS DISTRIBUTED TO THE NEEDY WHI CH IS CALLED AS MAHAPRASADAM AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FOOD TO THE POOR PEOPLE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS EXPENDITURE. THE TEMPLE I S OPEN TO EVERYBODY WITHOUT CASTE AND CREED AND THE TEMPLE DO ES NOT SHOW PARTIALITY TO A PARTICULAR RELIGION. THE TEMPL E IS THE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE GATHER FOR DISTRIBUTING ALMS AND DONAT IONS WHICH ARE GIVEN TO THE POOR AND NEEDY WHO HAVE GATHERED T HERE. THE MAINTENANCE OF THE TEMPLE CANNOT BE REGARDED FOR RE LIGIOUS PURPOSE AND IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GENERAL PUBLI C. HENCE, WE DIRECT THE DIT(E) TO GRANT REGISTRATION UNDER SECTI ON 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO THE ASSESSEE-TRUSTS. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.05.2015. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 29 TH MAY, 2015 VBP/- 9 ITA.NO.851 TO 853 & 859/HYD/2014 RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST & OTHERS, HYDERA BAD COPY TO 1. RAGHUNATH DAS DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. C/O. SRI S. RAMA RAO ADVOCATE, FLAT NO.102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, H.NO.3-6-643, STREET NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 029. 2. KAUSHALYA BAI SRINIVAS LAKHOTIYA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. 3. KANTA BAI GOVIND KUMAR LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. 4. AYODHYA BAI DAMODARDAS LOHIA CHARITABLE TRUST, HYDERABAD. 5. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD. 6. DDIT(E)-I, HYDERABAD. 7. D.R. I.T.A.T. B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 8. GUARD FILE