IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2025-26 M/s. Nehru Smaraka Vidya Kendra Trust, The Kariyappanahalli, Commissioner of Anekal Road, Income Tax Bannerugatta, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 083. Vs. Bengaluru.

PAN: AAATN1058K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Dr. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 10-09-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the rejection order of the Ld.CIT(E) dated 27/02/2025 in which the approval sought for u/s.

80G was rejected and raised the following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in denying the approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in holding that the appellant had not furnished sufficient details or proof of the activities of the trust/Institution within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income tax Act, 1961 when on the same set of facts and material furnished the learned CIT(E) had granted registration under section 12AB of the Income tax Act, 1961.

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) having satisfied with the genuineness of the trust and also having satisfied with the activities of the trust to grant registration under section 12AB of the Income tax Act, 1961 ought to have granted the approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 to enable the appellant trust to get donations for carrying out its objects. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has failed to comprehend the fact that, appellant has not only having fees receipts it also has other than fees receipts, which are eligible for deduction under section

80G of the Income tax Act, 1961.

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has failed to comprehend the fact that, "fees receipts" is the revenue generated out of the regular activities carried by the Institution/Trust, which does not comes under the definition of Donation Received under section 80G of the Income tax Act, 1961.

6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has wrongly assumed the chair of Appellant Trust by creating her own opinion at 6.4 of the order dated 17.1.2025 i.e., answer to (i) is "No" whereas answer to (ii) is Yes, by doing so, learned CIT(E) overlooked the fact that, the answer to (i) and (ii) may be vis a vis.

7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) while arriving at the excess of income over expenditure has grossly ignored the capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income under section 11(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) erred in law in not allowing accumulation under section 11(1)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, being 15% of the gross receipts, as application of income.

9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has failed to understand the method of computation of total income ie., application income in Trust cases.

10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has grossly ignored the fact that, the appellant had granted registration under section 80G from the date of appellant's inception.

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was not satisfied with the existing materials furnished by the appellant for granting approval in the interest of justice and having failed to do so, the order of denial is opposed to law and liable to be cancelled.

12. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust running educational institutions. The assessee trust also got the registration u/s. 12AB of