I donated to a trust that runs schools and hospitals but also has an object of maintaining places of worship. Do I still get the section 80G deduction?
No. The Supreme Court held that Explanation 3 to section 80G does not ask whether the institution as a whole is substantially religious. It asks whether any one of its objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. If one is, the institution falls outside section 80G and a donation to it earns no deduction, however charitable the rest of its objects are. The dominant purpose reasoning of Surat Art Silk, which was about the words in section 2(15), gives no help in construing Explanation 3.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment by Bharucha, J)) on 1997-08-04, reported as AIR 1997 SC 3121; (1997) 6 SCC 602; (1997) 227 ITR 578; (1997) 93 Taxman 645; 1997 AIR SCW 3166. It bears on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances and Charitable Trusts & Exemption matters.
This is the decision that separates section 80G from the general law of charitable purpose. Practitioners are used to the dominant object approach - an ancillary non-charitable object does not spoil a predominantly charitable trust - and this holds that the approach simply does not apply to Explanation 3, which is drafted to catch the object rather than the institution. The result is severe and is the reason so many trust deeds are redrafted: a single clause permitting aid to places of worship or prayer halls costs every donor the deduction. The Court also endorsed the High Court's view that an object is religious even where the trustees may support all religions and are not confined to one community.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
For assessment year 1973-74, the previous year having ended on 30 June 1972, the assessee donated Rs 25,000 to the Vishwa Mangal Trust and claimed a deduction under section 80G. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim on 27 December 1976, but the assessment was reopened under section 147(b) and on 30 December 1977 the claim was disallowed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal; the Tribunal allowed it and then referred the question to the Calcutta High Court, which reversed the Tribunal and answered in favour of the Revenue. The same thing happened in a later year and the High Court followed its earlier judgment. Clause 2 of the trust deed listed ten objects - schools, colleges, libraries and the promotion of science, literature and the arts; hospitals and nursing institutions; relief in earthquakes and floods; studentships and aid to poor students; hostels; physical culture and sport; centres for Indian art and culture; relief of the poor; uplift of backward classes irrespective of caste, creed or nationality; and, at clause 2(h), to establish, maintain and grant aid to public places of worship and prayer halls.
On the construction of Explanation 3 to section 80G the Court held for the Revenue. Section 80G applies, through sub-section (5), to an institution established in India for a charitable purpose, and Explanation 3 provides that charitable purpose in that section does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The Explanation takes note of the fact that an institution established for a charitable purpose may have a number of objects. If any one of those objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious character, the institution falls outside the scope of section 80G and a donation to it does not secure the deduction. Explanation 3 does not require an enquiry into whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution's purposes are religious. The decision in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, that an object merely ancillary or incidental to a dominant charitable purpose does not prevent a valid charity, was given on the words of section 2(15) and is of no assistance in construing Explanation 3.
The Court's reasoning is a close reading of where Explanation 3 fastens. The words are that charitable purpose does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The subject of the sentence is the purpose, not the institution. Since an institution established for charitable purposes commonly has several objects, the Explanation operates object by object: it is enough that one of them answers the description for the institution to lose the benefit of the section. That is why the familiar dominant purpose approach cannot be carried across. Surat Art Silk construed different words in a different provision - the qualification at the end of the definition in section 2(15) - and decided that an object which is not itself charitable, but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant charitable purpose, does not destroy the charity. Explanation 3 is not drafted in terms of dominance at all, so that reasoning has nothing to work on. On the character of clause 2(h) the Court proceeded on the High Court's view that establishing and maintaining public places of worship and prayer halls is an entirely religious purpose, and that a trust does not become secular merely because its trustees may support the places of worship of every religion rather than of one particular community.
If any one of these objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious character, the institution or fund falls outside the scope of section 80G.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The Supreme Court held that Explanation 3 to section 80G does not ask whether the institution as a whole is substantially religious. It asks whether any one of its objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious nature. If one is, the institution falls outside section 80G and a donation to it earns no deduction, however charitable the rest of its objects are. The dominant purpose reasoning of Surat Art Silk, which was about the words in section 2(15), gives no help in construing Explanation 3. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment by Bharucha, J)) and bears on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as AIR 1997 SC 3121; (1997) 6 SCC 602; (1997) 227 ITR 578; (1997) 93 Taxman 645; 1997 AIR SCW 3166. This is the decision that separates section 80G from the general law of charitable purpose. Practitioners are used to the dominant object approach - an ancillary non-charitable object does not spoil a predominantly charitable trust - and this holds that the approach simply does not apply to Explanation 3, which is drafted to catch the object rather than the institution. The result is severe and is the reason so many trust deeds are redrafted: a single clause permitting aid to places of worship or prayer halls costs every donor the deduction. The Court also endorsed the High Court's view that an object is religious even where the trustees may support all religions and are not confined to one community. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Read the donee's trust deed object by object before claiming the deduction, and stop at the first clause that is wholly or substantially religious - do not weigh it against the other objects.
For assessment year 1973-74, the previous year having ended on 30 June 1972, the assessee donated Rs 25,000 to the Vishwa Mangal Trust and claimed a deduction under section 80G. The Income-tax Officer allowed the claim on 27 December 1976, but the assessment was reopened under section 147(b) and on 30 December 1977 the claim was disallowed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the assessee's appeal; the Tribunal allowed it and then referred the question to the Calcutta High Court, which reversed the Tribunal and answered in favour of the Revenue. The same thing happened in a later year and the High Court followed its earlier judgment. Clause 2 of the trust deed listed ten objects - schools, colleges, libraries and the promotion of science, literature and the arts; hospitals and nursing institutions; relief in earthquakes and floods; studentships and aid to poor students; hostels; physical culture and sport; centres for Indian art and culture; relief of the poor; uplift of backward classes irrespective of caste, creed or nationality; and, at clause 2(h), to establish, maintain and grant aid to public places of worship and prayer halls. The matter was decided on 1997-08-04 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment by Bharucha, J)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. On the construction of Explanation 3 to section 80G the Court held for the Revenue. Section 80G applies, through sub-section (5), to an institution established in India for a charitable purpose, and Explanation 3 provides that charitable purpose in that section does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The Explanation takes note of the fact that an institution established for a charitable purpose may have a number of objects. If any one of those objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious character, the institution falls outside the scope of section 80G and a donation to it does not secure the deduction. Explanation 3 does not require an enquiry into whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution's purposes are religious. The decision in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, that an object merely ancillary or incidental to a dominant charitable purpose does not prevent a valid charity, was given on the words of section 2(15) and is of no assistance in construing Explanation 3.
The Court's reasoning is a close reading of where Explanation 3 fastens. The words are that charitable purpose does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The subject of the sentence is the purpose, not the institution. Since an institution established for charitable purposes commonly has several objects, the Explanation operates object by object: it is enough that one of them answers the description for the institution to lose the benefit of the section. That is why the familiar dominant purpose approach cannot be carried across. Surat Art Silk construed different words in a different provision - the qualification at the end of the definition in section 2(15) - and decided that an object which is not itself charitable, but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant charitable purpose, does not destroy the charity. Explanation 3 is not drafted in terms of dominance at all, so that reasoning has nothing to work on. On the character of clause 2(h) the Court proceeded on the High Court's view that establishing and maintaining public places of worship and prayer halls is an entirely religious purpose, and that a trust does not become secular merely because its trustees may support the places of worship of every religion rather than of one particular community. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "If any one of these objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious character, the institution or fund falls outside the scope of section 80G."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 1997-08-04 and is reported as AIR 1997 SC 3121; (1997) 6 SCC 602; (1997) 227 ITR 578; (1997) 93 Taxman 645; 1997 AIR SCW 3166. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 80G, section 80G(5), section 2(15), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. On the construction of Explanation 3 to section 80G the Court held for the Revenue. Section 80G applies, through sub-section (5), to an institution established in India for a charitable purpose, and Explanation 3 provides that charitable purpose in that section does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The Explanation takes note of the fact that an institution established for a charitable purpose may have a number of objects. If any one of those objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious character, the institution falls outside the scope of section 80G and a donation to it does not secure the deduction. Explanation 3 does not require an enquiry into whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution's purposes are religious. The decision in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, that an object merely ancillary or incidental to a dominant charitable purpose does not prevent a valid charity, was given on the words of section 2(15) and is of no assistance in construing Explanation 3. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances and Charitable Trusts & Exemption matters, on section 80G, section 80G(5), section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - S.P. Bharucha and V.N. Khare, JJ (judgment by Bharucha, J). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Do not rely on the dominant purpose reasoning of Surat Art Silk for a section 80G claim; the Court held it does not bear on Explanation 3. Do not argue that an object is secular because the trust may aid places of worship of every religion rather than one community - that argument was rejected here. Where a deed contains such a clause, take the point up with the donee institution and its approval, rather than expecting to save the deduction in your own assessment.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. A citator search returns 68 later decisions citing this judgment, the most recent of them from 2026, but none of the decisions named here applies or follows it. The Bangalore Tribunal in Shri Shruthiparampara Gurukulam v ITO (9 January 2023) and the Chennai Tribunal in Vyasa Vidya Mandiram v CIT (Exemptions) (9 March 2026) both set its construction out in order to hold it inapplicable - 'the assessee Trust does not have any object to establish, maintain and to grant and / or aid to public places of worship and prayer halls and hence the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of the present case' - and in each it was the Commissioner (Exemptions) who had relied on it. The Delhi Tribunal in Shri 108 Gupti Sagar Dham Jain v CIT (Exemptions) (26 May 2026) likewise treats it as displaced on the facts, noting that 'a new sub-section has been inserted in section 80G by Finance Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01.04.2000 subsequent to the order passed in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd.' and following an Ahmedabad bench that had distinguished it. Nothing overruling or doubting it was found. Section 80G(5B), inserted with effect from 1 April 2000, must be read with it: an institution incurring religious expenditure of not more than five per cent of its total income remains within section 80G notwithstanding clause (ii) of sub-section (5) and Explanation 3. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The harvested page stops in mid-sentence during the Court's closing restatement of Explanation 3, so the operative order is not on it: I can state what the Court held on the construction of the provision but not, from this text, how the appeals were formally disposed of or what was said about the second year. The key quote corrects one evident transcription slip in the harvested text, which reads institution or funds falls. The judgment as harvested does not deal with the reopening under section 147(b), which was not in issue before the Court. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
On the construction of Explanation 3 to section 80G the Court held for the Revenue. Section 80G applies, through sub-section (5), to an institution established in India for a charitable purpose, and Explanation 3 provides that charitable purpose in that section does not include any purpose the whole or substantially the whole of which is of a religious nature. The Explanation takes note of the fact that an institution established for a charitable purpose may have a number of objects. If any one of those objects is wholly, or substantially wholly, of a religious character, the institution falls outside the scope of section 80G and a donation to it does not secure the deduction. Explanation 3 does not require an enquiry into whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution's purposes are religious. The decision in Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, that an object merely ancillary or incidental to a dominant charitable purpose does not prevent a valid charity, was given on the words of section 2(15) and is of no assistance in construing Explanation 3.
TaxSphere, “Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd v CIT”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cit-v-upper-ganges-sugar-mills-ltd/ (validity last checked 2026-08-29)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
My Form 10AB was rejected before April 2024 because it was late or filed under the wrong section code. Is that rejection the end of the matter?
My Form 10AB under s.80G(5) was one day late and the Commissioner rejected it, saying he has no power to condone. Is a delay of one day really fatal?
My Form 10AB for final registration under s.12AB was rejected as time-barred because I missed the 30 June 2024 date in Circular 7/2024. Is anything left to me?
My trust filed Form 10BD for the whole financial year although its s.80G provisional approval began mid-year, so Forms 10BE were generated for pre-approval donations too. The CIT (Exemption) has refused final registration and approval on that ground. Is that a valid reason?
