The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that dissemination of the philosophical teachings of the Bhagavad Gita cannot, by itself, be equated with the propagation of religion.
The bench of Laliet Kumar (Judicial Member) and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) ruled that a trust primarily engaged in charitable activities such as protection of stray cattle, maintenance of gaushalas, and promotion of moral and social values cannot be classified as a “religious entity” merely because it conducts Bhagavad Gita discourses. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) to recognize the trust as a charitable institution under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act and grant approval under Section 80G.
The appellant/assessee was constituted on 26 May 2010 with the principal objects of protecting and preserving stray cattle, establishing and maintaining gaushalas, providing shelter, food, and veterinary care to abandoned, old, and infirm cows, and organizing programmes aimed at inculcating personal, social, and national values among the public.
Buy Now: 80+ Income Tax Judgments | E-Magazine July 2026
The trust had initially been granted provisional registration under Section 12AB in 2021 and subsequently applied for regular registration under Section 12AB along with approval under Section 80G. While the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) accepted the genuineness of the trust’s objects and activities, he categorized it as a “Religious Entity” rather than a charitable institution. Based on this classification, the Commissioner rejected the trust’s application for approval under Section 80G, holding that its Bhagavad Gita discourses and their broadcasting constituted religious activities attracting Explanation 3 to Section 80G(5).
Before the Tribunal, the trust argued that its dominant objects were undeniably charitable and had already been accepted by the Commissioner while granting registration under Section 12AB. It submitted that the only reason for classifying it as a religious institution was an incidental clause in the trust deed relating to renovation and maintenance of temples and the fact that it organized discourses on the Bhagavad Gita.
The trust pointed out that it had never undertaken any activity relating to renovation or maintenance of temples and had even furnished a written undertaking stating that no such activity had ever been carried out and would not be undertaken in the future. It further contended that the Bhagavad Gita is a universal philosophical text promoting ethics, duty, selfless action, discipline, and moral responsibility rather than propagation of any particular religion.
The ITAT observed that the Commissioner himself had accepted the genuineness of the trust’s charitable activities while granting registration under Section 12AB. The only dispute related to the characterization of the institution as religious.
The Bench held that the dominant objects of the trust were protection and preservation of stray cattle, maintenance of gaushalas, rehabilitation of abandoned cattle, provision of veterinary care, and promotion of moral and social values. None of these activities had been questioned by the Revenue.
The Tribunal emphasized that the legal character of a trust must be determined from its dominant objects and actual activities rather than by relying upon an isolated clause in the trust deed that had never been implemented. It held that an unimplemented ancillary object cannot determine the nature of the institution when its actual functioning remains charitable.
The Tribunal also referred to Articles 48 and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, observing that preservation of cattle and compassion for living creatures are recognized constitutional objectives.
According to the Bench, maintenance of gaushalas, rehabilitation of abandoned cattle, and provision of veterinary care directly advance these constitutional goals. The Tribunal clarified that merely because cow protection may also be revered by certain religious traditions does not convert every institution engaged in such work into a religious institution.
Rejecting the Revenue’s reasoning, the Tribunal observed that the Bhagavad Gita is universally recognized as one of the greatest philosophical treatises dealing with ethics, governance, duty, selfless action, discipline, and human conduct.
The Bench noted that the teachings of Karma Yoga, Jnana Yoga, self-discipline, renunciation of attachment, leadership, and moral responsibility transcend religious boundaries and are widely studied across the world in philosophy, management, governance, psychology, and public administration.
It further observed that the Bhagavad Gita had inspired several leaders of India’s freedom movement, including Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, and Acharya Vinoba Bhave, reinforcing its role as a source of ethical guidance rather than merely a religious scripture. Consequently, dissemination of these universal philosophical teachings could not be treated as propagation of religion or advancement of any particular religious denomination.
The Tribunal further found that the Commissioner had completely ignored Section 80G(5B), which provides that an institution cannot be denied approval merely because it incurs expenditure of a religious nature, provided such expenditure does not exceed five per cent of its total income during the relevant year.
The Bench recorded that the Revenue had not disputed the trust’s assertion that any alleged religious expenditure was well below the statutory threshold. Therefore, even assuming that dissemination of the Bhagavad Gita constituted a religious activity—which the Tribunal expressly rejected—the trust would still qualify for approval under Section 80G because of the statutory protection available under Section 80G(5B).
Allowing both appeals, the ITAT held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) was not justified in classifying the trust as a religious entity. It directed the Commissioner to issue a fresh registration certificate recognizing the trust as a charitable institution under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal also set aside the order rejecting approval under Section 80G and directed the Commissioner to grant the trust approval under that provision.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
