( 1 ) THE petitioner, Ganjam Nagappa and Sons is challenging the order passed by R-1, Director of Income Tax (Exemption) dated 29. 5. 2002, Annexure F. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a charitable Trust registered u/s. 12a of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka. The Commissioner of Income Tax by an order dated 26. 11. 1999 renewed the recognition of Trust u/s. 80g of I. T. Act 1961 up to 31. 3. 2001. The Trust applied for renewal of recognition u/s. 80g (5) to the Director of Income-Tax (Exemption) and the Director of Income Tax has rejected the renewal sought for by the petitioner. The same is challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance. Sri. Javali, learned Counsel invites my attention to the material facts to contend that the Commissioner has committed an error in not noticing the facts and the law in the case on hand. He says that the object of the Trust does not in any way diluted by the petitioner warranting no renewal on the facts of this case. He relies on the judgments of the Gujarath High Court reported in 246 ITR 452 (N. N. Desai Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax), 160 ITR 188 (Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sri. Thyaga Brahma Gana Sabha), 138 ITR 564 (Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of Visha Nima Charity Trust), 131 ITR 497 (Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Trustees of H. E. H. The Nizams Charitable Trust) and 172 ITR 698 (Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust ). ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order. He relies on 256 ITR 690. ( 5 ) ADMITTED facts reveal of a renewal application and rejection of the same. Before considering the matter, let me see the law on the point. ( 6 ) SEC. 80g of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions etc. Large number of Institutions, Firms and body corporate are reflected in the said provision. Sub Sec. 5 provides for certain exemption in the matter of payment of tax subject to certain conditions. Sub Section 5 provides for an approval in the matter of exemption in terms of Sec. 80g of the Act. In the case on hand, as I mentioned earlier, the petitioner has obtained exemption for several years. Sub Sec. 5 provides for certain exemption in the matter of payment of tax subject to certain conditions. Sub Section 5 provides for an approval in the matter of exemption in terms of Sec. 80g of the Act. In the case on hand, as I mentioned earlier, the petitioner has obtained exemption for several years. Renewal was sought. ( 7 ) RULE 11aa provides for consideration of approval of an institution or fund u/s. 80g Sub Rule 1. Rule 11aa provides for an application being made in terms of Form No. 10g. The said application is to be accompanied by copy of registration granted u/s. 12a, notes of activities of institution, copies of accounts of the institution and funds since its institution or during the last year whichever is sought. Rule 3 Sub Rule 3 provides for calling for such further documents or information from the institution and it further provides for such enquiries to be made as he may deems necessary as to satisfy himself about the genuiness of the activities of the Institution. After satisfaction, approval can be granted in the matter. Sub Rule 5 provides for rejection after recording these notes. The authority in paragraph 2 notices the financial results for the last 3 years. The authority notices various facts such as withdrawal of substantial amount and using them thereafter/usage of logo on the basic concert/withdrawal of Rs. 9 lakhs for purchasing a site in cash/non availability of the signature on the sponsership agreement/availability of programmes to a certain few persons. It further notices that the facts would show that the Company is furthering its interest by way of displaying its logo, its name and advertisement obtaining a mileage out of such activities. ( 8 ) AFTER noticing all these factual aspects of the matter, the authority was not satisfied of any charitable activities being carried on by the petitioner. Satisfaction is necessary in terms of Sec. 80g r/w. Rule 11aa of the Act. The facts of the case would show that the petitioner-Trust has done several acts warranting no renewal. Satisfaction is necessary on the part of the authority for renewal purposes. The reason given by the authority cannot said to require my interference in the case on hand. In my view, a Trust cannot be a tool for furtherance of trade interest of another commercial organization. Satisfaction is necessary on the part of the authority for renewal purposes. The reason given by the authority cannot said to require my interference in the case on hand. In my view, a Trust cannot be a tool for furtherance of trade interest of another commercial organization. The purpose of Sec. 80 (G) is not for further promoting commercial activities. Order is based on the material available on record. No contra material is placed before this Court to dislodge this factual finding arrived by the Commissioner. ( 9 ) AT this state, I must notice a few Judgments cited by Sri. Javali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is no doubt true that the money spent towards development or furtherance of music performance by itself would not be a cause for rejection. The question is how the same is to be spent or how the mileage has been drawn by sponsoring the performance is the real question involved in the case on hand. ( 10 ) 246 ITR 452 is a case relied on by the petitioner. A reading of the said Judgment would show that in the said case, the Commissioner has rejected the application after noticing these facts. The Court noticed the order of the Commissioner refusing approval is founded on wholly irrelevant considerations by trenching upon the field of the Assessing Officer by pronouncing on the taxability or non-taxability of any income in respect of the assessments for the past year which are yet to be completed. In those circumstances this Court interfered in that case. Desai Charitable Trust Judgment of the Gujarath High Court is factually distinguishable. ( 11 ) THE Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Thyaga Brahma Gana Sabha 188 ITR 160 is another Judgment relied on by the petitioner. There, the Court was considering that the object of the assessee. In that case, the object was to impart education in several branches of the fine arts. The Court notices the object to come to a conclusion that promoting the advancement of music and other fine arts is acceptable on the facts of this case. Music is part of the Trust objects of the Trust. In the light of the object of the Sabha, the Court rules that there is charitable character in the said case. This Judgment is distinguishable on facts. Music is part of the Trust objects of the Trust. In the light of the object of the Sabha, the Court rules that there is charitable character in the said case. This Judgment is distinguishable on facts. In the case on hand, the authority has not rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that music performance as held by the Trust is not any way opposed to the objects of the Trust. What was objected to was the way in which things were conducted by the Trust by using concerts to further its business interests. This Judgment is equally not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 12 ) THE 3rd case is Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Trustees of Visha Nima Charity Trust, 138 ITR 564. In that case, the Court notices the receipt of voluntary contributions from Institutions to hold in favour of the Trust. The Court notices that the contribution received could never be recorded as income derived by the assessee-Trust from property and neither counsel has advanced any argument to that effect before the Court. This Judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. ( 13 ) THE next Judgment of the Supreme Court is the case of Fifth Generation Education Society Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. This again is a case with regard to exemption in the matter. ( 14 ) THE Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh vs. Trustees of H. E. H. The Nozams Charitable Trust considered various provisions of the Act. On facts, the Court rules that the assessee was entitled to benefits under exemption. ( 15 ) THE Judgment of the Income Tax Officer Vs. H. P. Vishweswaraiah 250 ITR 863 is a Judgment in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal. The Court rules that equitable interpretation is preferred to the literal construction. ( 16 ) THE respondent has relied on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in 227 ITR 578 (Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. And others Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ). The Court in the said Judgment considered the scope of Sec. 80g and noticed the charitable character of the Institution. The Court notices that donation in that case falls outside the scope of Sec. 80g. ( 17 ) THE second Judgment relied on by the respondent is reported in 258 ITR 395. Commissioner of Income-tax ). The Court in the said Judgment considered the scope of Sec. 80g and noticed the charitable character of the Institution. The Court notices that donation in that case falls outside the scope of Sec. 80g. ( 17 ) THE second Judgment relied on by the respondent is reported in 258 ITR 395. In the said case, registration was declined in the light of an admitted receipt of Rs. 25,000/ -. Therefore, what is clear to this Court is that grant of exemption or renewal is not automatic in character. It is subject to the satisfaction of the authority with regard to the renewal or registration. It stands to logic because Sec. 80g provides for exemption from payment of income tax. The revenue to the Government is denied on account of exemption in terms of laws. Therefore, the authority has to look into the object of the institution and also the facts and circumstances of each case to satisfy itself with regard to the charitable character and with regard to its activities in terms of Sec. 80 (G) r/w. Rule 11 of the Rules. Only on being satisfied with the objects, registration of renewal is permissible in terms of the facts available on record u/s. 80 (G) of the Act. In the case on hand, as I have already ruled that the authority is correct on facts and it cannot be said that any case as such is made out by the petitioner. In these circumstances, I do not find any justifiable grounds to interfere with a well reasoned order of the authority on facts. Petition stands rejected. No costs. --- *** --- .