one of the trust was denied 80g because it wanted to construct cow sheds for protection of cows the commissioner classified as religious activity and 80g denied

> TRUST
> Amendment to Trust deed has no retrospective effect.
> Bhriguraj Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Del) 228 ITR 50
> For 80G registration, Trust should qualify for exemption u/s 11.
> Mundakapadam Mandirams Society (Ker) 258 ITR 395
> Assessee Trust not carrying out any charitable activity but using funds
> for construction of shopping complex Renewal of 80G approval rejected
> by CIT.
> Madani Musafir Khamar Welfare Society Vs CIT & Anr. (Patna) 264 ITR 481
> Donation to charitable trust Trust for religious purposes also
> Trustees could spend the entire income of trust for religious purpose
> Donation to such trust not entitled to 80G deduction.
> Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd Vs CIT (SC) 227 ITR 578
> Arsha Vijnana Trust Vs D.P. Sharma, DIT(Exemptions ) (AP) 295 ITR 437
> Charitable Trust Income used for religious purpose, temple
> construction CIT denies renewal of recognition.
> KirtichandTarawati Charitable Trust Vs DIT (Exemption) & Ors. (Del) 232
> ITR 11
> Trust for propagation of a particular religion Not a public charitable
> Trust.
> M.P. Santhivarma Jain Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (Ker) 265 ITR 385
> Trust created by members of family for upkeep of temples - Not public
> trust.
> Kizhakke Kovilakam Trust Vs ACIT (Ker) 256 ITR 238
> Sole beneficiary is minor As per Trust deed, he is not entitled to any
> income when he is a minor Assessment on Trust u/s 164(1) upheld.
> ITO Vs Sheetal Sunder Trust (ITAT, Bang) 96 ITD 128
> Trust not specifying shares of beneficiaries Subsequent rectification
> deed specifying shares Does not relate back Prior to rectification,
> trust assessable as discretionary Trust
> Ranga rao Lottery Agencies Vs CIT (MP) 287 ITR 542
>
> Option to assess trust or beneficiary directly.
> CIT Vs Bharti Devi Sarabhai (SC) 231 ITR 526
> CIT Vs Dr. Anand Sarabhai Trust (SC) 231 ITR 524
> When Assessing Officer assessed Trust, in fact, it was made on Trustees
> who were representing beneficiaries as representative assessees u/s
> 160(1)(iv) Sec. 161(1A) overrides provisions of Sec. 166�It was the
> duty of Assessing Officer to tax the right person Hence eventhough
> assessments were made on beneficiaries on the basis of return filed by
> Trustees on behalf of beneficiaries, Assessing Officer can assess the
> right person i.e., Trustees as representative assessee on whole of
> income consisting of profits & gains of business at maximum marginal
> rate.
> DCIT Vs Manilal Bapalal Family Benefit Trust (ITAT, Mad) 66 ITD 179
> Business carried on in terms of Trust deed Tribunal correct in holding
> that trustees were not assessable as AOP.
> CIT Vs K. Shyamaraju (Trustees) & Ors. (Kar) 189 ITR 392
> As per Trust deed, Trustees had no discretion with regard to choice of
> beneficiary all assets held by them were meant to be held solely for
> benefit of one solitary beneficiary Maximum marginal rate applicable.
> CIT Vs Saroja Raman & T.G. Ranjini Trust (Mad) 104 Taxman 163.
> Trust deed named grand daughter of author of Trust as beneficiary
> entitled to Trust income on attaining majority Not attained majority
> Hence payment was left to absolute discretion of trustees, beneficiary
> is unknown and share indeterminate Tax at maximum rate.
> Anasuya Muthanna Vs CIT (Mad) 232 ITR 561
> Since rights of beneficiaries to get corpus of trust fund come into
> existence only on a future date, interest of beneficiaries is
> indeterminate or unknown contingent Sec. 21(4) of WT Act attracted
> Interest of beneficiaries to be assessed.
> A.V. Reddy Trust & Ors. Vs CWT (SC) 240 ITR 409
> Will comes into operation on the death of testator and not "in
> presenti" - Since the deed came into effect on the date of execution,
> it is not Will Since only 10% income went to the benefit of relatives
> and balance went to charitable purposes, it cannot be said to be solely
> for the benefit of relatives.
> Not covered by provisions (ii) & (iii) to 164(1)- To be taxed at 65%.
> Chintamani Ghosh Trust Vs CIT (All) 222 ITR 578
> Trust deriving income from business assessment to be made in the hands
> of trustee.
> CIT Vs Manoranjitham Thanga Maligai Trust (Mad) 260 ITR 143
> Trust created by or on behalf of minor without prior sanction of Civil
> Court Not a valid Trust.
> T.A.V. Trust Vs CIT (SC) 236 ITR 788
> Distribution received by beneficiary from various discretionary trust
> can be assessed in the hands of beneficiary.
> CIT Vs Anand Sarabhai Trust (SC) 231 ITR 524
> Amount collected in the name of God / deities, but utilized for benefit
> of family concerns Trust to be assessed as AOP at maximum marginal
> rate.
> ITO Vs Shri Radha Dharmarth Trust (ITAT, Del) 66 ITD 253
> Not only objects of trust, but application of its income for charitable
> purposes, is also important.
> Al Madeena Charitable Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT, Coch) 76 ITD 214
> Even prior to amendment in 1972, under Sec. 12(1) voluntary
> contribution themselves were taxable if they were not applied solely
> for charitable or religious purposes.
> R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs CIT (SC) 233 ITR 53
> Local authority constituted for planned development of State For
> carrying out its objects, assessee is acquiring lands at nominal rates
> and selling the same after developing it to general public at higher
> rates Assessee is not allotting houses to poor masses free of cost
> Objects not of charitable nature but more of commercialised nature
> involving profit motive
> Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs CIT ( ITAT, Chd ) 103
> TTJ 988
> Income to be arrived at in a commercial manner without classification
> under various heads.
> CIT Vs Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (Mad) 135 ITR 485
> Amount credited to the account of beneficiaries cannot be treated as
> loan Interest paid to such beneficiaries cannot be allowed as
> deduction.
> Arun Family Trust Vs CIT (Guj) 165 Taxman 15