Case Law Details
Oxford and Cambridge Society of India Vs CIT (Exemption) (ITAT Delhi)
Material Facts
The assessee, a society registered since 1982 comprising alumni of Oxford and Cambridge Universities, awards merit scholarships to Indian students pursuing postgraduate studies at those universities. The CIT(E), by orders dated 27.03.2026, rejected the assessee’s application for registration under Section 12AB and consequently rejected registration under Section 80G.
The CIT(E) held that the scholarships were ultimately utilised outside India in alleged violation of Section 11(1)(c), questioned the selection process, observed that scholarships were not strictly based on financial hardship, and noted the absence of follow-up with scholarship recipients.
Parties’ Submissions
The assessee submitted that scholarship funds were disbursed in India, in Indian currency, directly to students or their parents/guardians through Indian bank accounts. It contended that no money was remitted to any foreign university or institution. It also submitted that both merit and financial background were considered while selecting candidates and explained that privacy and data protection laws prevented foreign universities from sharing graduates’ details. The Society nevertheless maintained outreach through alumni forums, social media and voluntary engagement.
The Revenue supported the CIT(E)’s order, contending that the funds were ultimately utilised outside India.
Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal identified the principal issue as whether scholarships paid in India to Indian students for studies abroad constituted application of income outside India under Section 11(1)(c).
It observed that the scholarships were disbursed within India directly to students or their guardians in Indian currency and that no amount was remitted to Oxford, Cambridge or any overseas institution. Accordingly, it held that a student’s subsequent travel abroad did not convert a domestic disbursement into application of income outside India.
The Tribunal further relied on three ITAT decisions involving similar issues and held that scholarships granted for higher education abroad did not violate Section 11(1)(c). It also noted that the assessee satisfied the substantive conditions for registration, including pursuing charitable educational objects, maintaining a 40-year history of charitable activities, and filing audited accounts and Form 10BB.
Since the rejection of registration under Section 80G was solely based on refusal of registration under Section 12A, the Tribunal held that the assessee was also entitled to registration under Section 80G.
Final Ruling
The Tribunal directed the grant of registration under Section 12A forthwith and also directed that registration under Section 80G be granted. Both appeals were allowed.
Cases Discussed
- Jhaverbhai Patel Research Centre v. CIT(E) (ITAT Mumbai), 183 taxmann.com 366
- Columbia Global Center in India vs The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) (Bombay High Court), WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23170 OF 2025
- R Mangaldas Charitable Trust, Mumbai Vs. CIT(E) (ITAT Mumbai), 180 taxmann.com 190
- J N Tata Endowment (ITAT Mumbai), 166 taxmann.com 126
- Jamsetji Tata Trust Vs. JCIT(E), Mumbai (ITAT Mumbai), ITA 7006/Mum/2013, order dated 26.03.2014
SEO Titles (Five Alternatives)
Section 12A Registration Granted to Overseas Scholarship Society: ITAT Delhi
Section 80G Registration Directed After Allowing Section 12A Claim: ITAT Delhi
Scholarships Paid in India Held Eligible for Section 12A Registration: ITAT Delhi
Registration Under Sections 12A and 80G Restored for Scholarship Society: ITAT Delhi
Section 11(1)(c) Objection Rejected, 12A Registration Directed: ITAT Delhi
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This is a batch of two appeals, pertaining to the same assessee. Since the issues are interconnected, hence these two appeals are being disposed of through a single order. ITA 5165 arises from order u/s 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), vide order dated 27.3.2026, passed by Ld. CIT(E), Delhi. ITA 5166 also emanates from order dated 27.3.2026, passed by Ld. CIT(E), Delhi, u/s 80G(5) of the Act.
1.1 The assessee, Oxford and Cambridge Society of India (OCSI), is an organization consisting of several India based alumni from both universities. The assessee’s activities include promoting scholarships, fellowship and social interactions among its members. The assessee- Trust is registered as a Society since 1982 and mainly awards merit scholarships to Indian students for postgraduate studies at Oxford or Cambridge Universities. However, at the time of considering granting of registration, the Ld. CIT(E) has given several findings, which, in his opinion, were sufficient to deny registration u/s 12AB of the Act. The findings may be mentioned in brief as under:
i. The scholarships granted to students are eventually utilized outside India, in the UK specifically, ostensibly in violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act;
ii. The scholarship beneficiaries are not strictly selected on the basis of financial hardship;
iii. The selection process is allegedly opaque and the assessee could not provide details of the selection process to the extent desirable; and
iv. The assessee could not indicate as to the kind of follow-up done by the Society once the recipients of the scholarships passed out from the courses in which they were enrolled.
1.2 The matter in ITA 5166 (u/s 80G of the Act) was adversely dealt with on the basis that the 12AB matter was held against the assessee.
1.3 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal. For the sake of convenience, ITA 5165 is being taken as the lead case, where the grounds, as per Form 36, are as under:
“1 That the Ld. CIT (EXEMPTION), DELHI (hereafter referred to as Ld. CIT) has, vide the order under reference, grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in rejecting the appellants application filed in Form 10AB for grant of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act.
2. That the Ld. CIT has, vide the order under reference, grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in cancelling the provisional registration earlier granted to the appellant under section 12A(1)(ac) (vi) of the Act vide Order dated 24.03.2023 in Form 10AC having Unique Registration Number AAAAT8223BE2022 issued for a period of three years from AY 2023 24 to AY 2025 26.
3. That the Ld. CIT has grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in alleging that the appellant is in violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act by erroneously alluding that the scholarships given by the appellant are ultimately being applied outside India without taking prior permission of the competent authority.
4. That the Ld. CIT has grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in disregarding several judgements of the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal cited by the appellant in support of its contention that the scholarships given by the appellant for study overseas was application of income for charitable purposes in India and thus, would qualify for exemption under section 11.
5.That the Ld. CIT has grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in stating that no advertisement/selection process were followed by the appellant and that it is using advertisement/publicity methods which are very limited in reach which is not in consonance with the facts explained by the appellant.
6. That the Ld. CIT has grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in casting doubts on the genuineness of the charitable intent of the appellant by wrongly alleging that the selection process of candidates for scholarship eligibility does not consider any financial/economic criteria of the beneficiaries and that, therefore, in cannot be ascertained that the beneficiaries have limited means/source of income and are actually in need of scholarships which is contrary to the factual position explained by the appellant that financial and economic criteria are also evaluated along with merit.
7. That the Ld. CIT has grossly erred in erroneously and unfairly drawing adverse inference against the appellant for allegedly failing to explain and being silent on the issue of how the appellant contacts/follows up to contact students once they finish the courses in the foreign university by disregarding the appellant’s explanations that law restrictions under Data Protection and Privacy Laws, that are in force both in the United Kingdom and in India, do not permit foreign universities from sharing details of graduating students directly with the appellant.
8. That, in view of the foregoing grounds, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT is erroneous, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.”
2.0 Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of several ITAT orders of Coordinate Benches and also written arguments. It was averred that the funds are disbursed to students in India in their Indian Bank Accounts, or the Bank Accounts of their parents or guardians, for purposes of supporting their studies. Such sums are invariably a small portion of the funds actually required by the students for the purposes of pursuing their studies, and thus such sums may be utilized by the student for their studies or any associated purposes (accommodation, study material, travel, etc). It was vehemently argued that section 11(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted. The Scholarships are disbursed exclusively from voluntary contributions from the alumni and the seed money is invariably maintained in a separate account specifically for the purpose of scholarships and thus would fall within section 11(1)(d) of the Act. It was emphasized that the place of activity was India and no sum of money was being remitted directly to any Institution outside India. It was further argued that the Ld. CIT(E) has completely misdirected himself on the facts as it was clearly mentioned that the assessee conjointly considers merit and the overall financial condition of the candidate before considering grant of scholarship. It was the submission that the selection process also considers financial/economic criteria of the beneficiaries. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that the candidates are requested to specify their economic backgrounds and the short-listed candidates are specifically queried on their economic and social backgrounds before final decisions are taken by the scholarships committee. It was explained that the Society gains no benefit from awarding the scholarships, and gains no profit therefrom. On the issue of follow-up activities, it was stated that once the candidate has passed out of the selected course, it was averred that the assessee had clearly stated that under the data protection and privacy laws, the foreign Universities are not permitted to share details of graduating students directly with the Society. It was mentioned that the Universities share information about the assessee- Society on their Alumni websites/forums, and direct any queries received by them to the Society. It was further explained that the assessee-Society does not insist that students become members upon graduation as membership to the Society is purely voluntary. The Society makes regular efforts at outreach for graduating students when they return to India, including encouraging them to stay in contact and connecting with them on social media and LinkedIn, etc.
It was prayed that the assessee-Society will be attempting to raise funds for scholarships for the cycle 2026-27 in April-May, 2026, as the scholarships have to be disbursed by July, 2026. Thus, there was some urgency for the application u/s 12AB of the Act to be allowed.
2.1 The Ld. CIT DR supported the impugned order and stated that the Ld. CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee’s claim since the funds were being invariably utilized outside India.
3.0 We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. The primary issue to be decided is whether disbursing scholarships in India, to Indian students for studies at a foreign university constitutes application of income “outside India” under Section 11(1)(c), justifying denial of 12A/80G registration. Admittedly the situs of disbursement of the scholarship is within India, as the assessee is seen to be paying the scholarships in India directly to scholars or their guardians in India, in Indian currency. No amount is remitted to the UK or to any foreign institution. We need also to consider the language of section 11(1)(c) of the Act:
“Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes.
11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income—
…………………
(c) income derived from property held under trust—
i. created on or after the 1st day of April, 1952, for a charitable purpose which tends to promote international welfare in which India is interested, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes outside India, and
ii. for charitable or religious purposes, created before the 1st day of April, 1952, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes outside India:
Item number
Provided that the Board, by general or special order, has directed in either case that it shall not be included in the total income of the person in receipt of such income;……. ”
Thus, it needs to be inferred that section 11(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted as the bar would apply to income applied “for purposes outside India”. A student subsequently travelling abroad does not convert a domestic disbursement into a foreign application of funds. The assessee is not found paying anything to Oxford, Cambridge, or any overseas institution.
3.1 Three ITAT precedents all directly on point, all in favour of the assessee deserve to be mentioned:
1. Jhaverbhai Patel Research Centre v. CIT(E), 183 taxmann.com 366 (ITAT Mumbai, 27.01.2026): INR payment in India to Indian citizen for overseas study assistance “outside India”: Section 11(1)(c) not attracted. The relevant portion deserves to be extracted as under:
6. We have considered the rival submissions perused the material available on record. Admittedly in present case the application of assessee in Form 10AB was furnished with a delay of 38 days for which it is submitted by the assessee that the order was served to them on 17.01.2025 and the application was filed within 30 days from receipt of the said order. Regarding the issue of delay Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Columbia Global Center in India vs The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) on 7 October, 2025, WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 23170 OF 2025, had held that, “the approach of the authority ought to be equitious, balancing and judicious and availing of exemption should not be denied merely on the bar of limitation. This is more so when the Legislature has, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, conferred discretionary powers to condone the delay on the authorities concerned with a view to avoid genuine hardship.”, we, thus, are of the opinion that, the delay of 38 days, that too explained, to be on account of delay in receipt of Order from Charity Commissioner, the assessee should not be penalized for that, even otherwise the authority needs to adopt a liberal and justice oriented approach to while condoning the delay. We this direct to condone the delay in filing of for 10AB in present case.
7. On other issues, which forms the belief of Ld. CIT(E) to reject the application of assessee, that the payment in India for study outside India does equate to payments / expenses incurred outside India, does not inspire any confidence, particularly when the scholarship is granted to an Indian citizen in Indian rupees. This issue was decided ITAT Mumbai in the case of R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust, Mumbai Vs. CIT(E) (supra), observing that, “if the scholarship is granted by a charitable institution in accordance with their objects, whereby such financial assistance is provided in India in Indian rupees and that too, to Indian student, such application of income will happen for educational purposes in India. The financial assistance so provided will be utilized by students for abroad cannot be read and understood as providing financial assistance outside India and consequent upon application of income outside India. Assessee trust also taken necessary steps to amend the objects of trust to put at rest any doubts in this respect.” The facts of the present matter, being identical to facts of aforesaid case of R. Mangaldas Charitable Trust (supra), in absence of any distinguishing fact, we find no merits in the decision of Ld. CIT(E) in treating the grant of financial assistance to Ms. Annushree Ajit Kumar in India, to be an expenditure incurred outside India. We, thus, direct the same to be treated as a permissible action by the trust and not in violation of section 11(1)(c) of the Act. A similar issue raised in the appeal in ITA 7006/Mum/2013 in the case of Jamsetji Tata Trust Vs. JCIT(E), Mumbai vide order dated 26.03.2014 (supra), the tribunal holds that, education grant given to the Indian students in India for education / higher education abroad fulfils the conditions of application of money for such purpose in India.”
Similar findings on virtually identical facts are observed in the cases of J N Tata Endowment, reported in 166 taxmann.com 126 (Mumbai, dated 24.07.2024); and in the case of R Mangaldas Charitable Trust, reported in 180 taxmann.com 190 (Mumbai, dated 31 10.2025). Thus, we unhesitatingly hold that merely on the basis that scholarships are provided to candidates for aiding in their higher education pursuits at Oxford/Cambridge would not constitute any violation of the conditions laid down in section 11(1) of the Act. Nor would this activity be non-charitable in nature. We also find that all substantive conditions for registration u/s 12A/80G of the Act are satisfied as we see the assessee adhering to charitable objects-education, a long 40-year history of charitable activity, audited accounts and Form 10BB having been filed. We accordingly direct that registration u/s 12A must be granted forthwith.
3.1 Regarding the issue of registration u/s 80G of the Act, we find that the application in that regard has been rejected on the ground that the registration u/s 12A of the Act has been rejected. Since we have directed grant of registration u/s 12A of the Act supra, we direct that the assessee should be allowed registration u/s 80G of the Act as well.
4.0 Accordingly, the assessee succeeds with respect to both the appeals, which thus stand allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.
Author Bio
