The Central Government has notified the four Labour Codes, which came into effect on 21 November 2025, marking a significant shift in India’s labour law framework. These changes have direct implications for non-profit organisations. 👉 As part of our five-part series supporting non-profits through this transition, Part V (final) outlines key compliance obligations under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSH Code) . The OSH Code consolidates and replaces multiple sector-specific laws, including the Factories Act, Contract Labour Act, and Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, establishing a unified framework governing working conditions, health, safety, welfare, and employment standards across establishments. Read Part V here: Read: Part 1  (An overview of the four Labour Codes) Part 2   ( Code on Wages, 2019) Part 3   ( Code on Social Security, 2020) Part 4   ( Industrial Relations Code, 2020)

The Central Government has notified the four Labour Codes, which came into effect on 21 November 2025, marking a significant shift in India’s labour law framework. These changes have direct implications for non-profit organisations. 👉 As part of our five-part series supporting non-profits through this transition. Part IV examines the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 , further exploring whether and when not-for-profit organisations may fall within the definition of an “industry” under the new framework.                                         Read Part IV here: Read: Part 1  (An overview of the four Labour Codes) Part 2   ( Code on Wages, 2019) Part 3   ( Code on Social Security, 2020) Part 5   ( Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020)

The Central Government has notified the four Labour Codes, which came into effect on 21 November 2025, marking a significant shift in India’s labour law framework. These changes have direct implications for non-profit organisations. 👉 As part of our five-part series supporting non-profits through this transition, Part III outlines key compliance obligations under the Code on Social Security, 2020. The Code consolidates multiple social security legislations relating to provident fund, employee state insurance, gratuity, maternity benefit, and employee compensation, and expands coverage to include contract workers, gig workers, platform workers and fixed-term employees. It introduces uniform definitions, broader coverage, and technology-driven compliance mechanisms. Read Part III here: Read: Part 1  (An overview of the four Labour Codes) Part 2   ( Code on Wages, 2019) Part 4   ( Industrial Relations Code, 2020) Part 5   ( Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020) 5

The Central Government has notified the four Labour Codes , which came into effect on 21 November 2025 , marking a significant shift in India’s labour law framework . These changes have direct implications for non-profit organisations , including those with employees and those engaging contract workers. To support non-profits in navigating this transition, we are publishing a five-part series focused on key compliance and operational considerations under the new framework. 👉  Part I offers an overview of the four Labour Codes and highlights their implications for employers, employees/workers, and contractors. Read Part I here: Read: Part 2 ( Code on Wages, 2019) Part 3 ( Code on Social Security, 2020) Part 4 ( Industrial Relations Code, 2020) Part 5 ( Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020)

The Central Government has notified the four Labour Codes , which came into effect on 21 November 2025 , marking a significant shift in India’s labour law framework . These changes have direct implications for non-profit organisations 👉 As part of our five-part series supporting non-profits through this transition, Part II outlines key compliance obligations under Code on Wages, 2019 . The Code consolidates and replaces the Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Bonus Act, and Equal Remuneration Act, introducing uniform wage definitions and standardised wage-related protections for employees and contract workers across sectors.  Read Part II here:   Read: Part 1 (An overview of the four Labour Codes) Part 3   ( Code on Social Security, 2020) Part 4   ( Industrial Relations Code, 2020) Part 5   ( Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020)

In an appeal against a decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Mumbai, (CIT(E)) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (ITAT) held that the provision of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to streamline judicial processes can be considered to be charitable activities. The order in Legsys AI Technology Foundation vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai dated 21 November 2025, provides further clarity on the use of advanced tools such as AI in the non-profit world.  Background of the Case Legsys AI (“the assessee”), a Section 8 company, provides pro bono access to District Courts for AI-based technical support and training, facilitating judges of District Courts in speedy disposal of cases. The assessee had filed a Form 10 AB application under Sec.12(1)(AC)(iii) before the CIT(E). The application was rejected by the CIT(E), stating that the assessee’s activities are not charitable in nature, as they violate Sec.2(15) of the Income Tax Act (“the Act”). Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee appealed to the ITAT. Legal Issues The crux of this case revolved around the question of whether the assessee’s activities could be regarded as charitable in nature. It was the assessee’s contention that the services aid in promoting social welfare, by enhancing access to justice for the public through the use of AI technology. The assessee had not engaged in any commercial activity and had entered into memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with no financial component with certain High Courts. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the Revenue Department that the assessee was engaged in providing technical services to judicial forums, which would not be tantamount to charitable activity. Reasoning of the Tribunal The Tribunal, in order to examine if the activities of the assessee could be considered to be charitable in nature, examined the memorandum of association (MoA) of the company as well as the MoUs it had entered into with various High Courts and District Courts. The Tribunal then observed that the objectives of the assessee in its MoA includes providing technical support and training to Court staff for enhancing speedy disposal of pending litigation. Further, the MoUs were also seen to not have any fees involved in the activities, making it clear that these were pro bono services provided to the judiciary. In order to examine if the activities undertaken by the assessee, i.e., providing AI tools to provide text-to-speech transcription on a pro bono basis to various Courts, would fall under the definition of charitable activities, the Tribunal examined the definition provided under Sec.2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that supporting the judiciary for speedy disposal of cases must fall under the definition of “charitable purpose”, which includes “the advancement of any other object of public utility”, as long as the assessee’s services are provided pro bono and without any compensation. Key Takeaways from the Ruling The ITAT in this case has examined the objectives clause of the assessee’s MoA, as well as the MoUs it had entered into with various High Courts to provide its services to come to the conclusion that the assessee was indeed working towards charitable purposes. By ensuring that the activities were undertaken pro bono, and were aligned with the objectives mentioned in the MoA, the ITAT was convinced that the assessee was only engaged in charitable activities. Based on the above reasoning, the assessee’s appeal was allowed, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant registration to the assessee. This judgment finds that ac tivities leveraging technology for public benefit can qualify under "advancement of any other object of general public utility"   for the purposes of charitable exemptions.  Non-profits should note that this finding was only possible since the assessee’s objects as reflected in their charter documents aligned with their work as reflected in their agreements and activity report.

This Note is designed to be read as a refresher of the provisions of the Act in the wake of the finalised DPDP Rules. Please do go through our Primers ( Data Protection Primer for Non-Profits , Mitigating Legal and Ethical Risks for non-profits in use of AI , Digital Data Protection & Consent Protocols for Persons with Disabilities ) and Pulse by Pacta edition ( Part I , Part II , Part III ) for more in-depth analysis into the impact of Data Protection legislation on non-profits. The Government of India notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 (“the Rules”) on 14 November 2025, marking the full operationalisation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act). While there haven’t been major changes made in the notified Rules when compared to the draft Rules released in January 2025, in this Note, we go through the provisions of the finalised Rules, and identify actionables for non-profit organisations collecting, processing, storing or sharing personal data . 1. Timeline for Implementation of the Rules Rule 1 provides for the staggered implementation of the DPDP Act’s provisions: Rules relating to the setting up of the Data Protection Board shall come into force immediately. Rules relating to the registration of Consent Managers shall come into force one year from the notification of the Rules, i.e., November 2026. All other rules, including the obligations of Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors, come into force 18 months from the notification of the Rules, i.e., May 2027. 2. Obligations of Data Fiduciary Data Fiduciaries have the responsibility to: Provide clear and understandable notice to the Data Principal, with an itemised description of the personal data to be collected, the purpose for which it is being collected, and the manner in which the Data Principal can withdraw their consent, exercise their rights, or complain to the Data Protection Board. [Rule 3] Implement reasonable security safeguards , including measures for encryption, obfuscation, access control measures, maintaining logs, maintaining processing in case of a breach of confidentiality, detection and investigation of unauthorised access, and other technical or organisational safeguards. Data Fiduciaries must also provide for provisions relating to Data Protection in contract between them and any Data Processors. [Rule 6] Intimate Data Fiduciary and the Data Protection Board in case of a data breach within 72 hours . [Rule 7] Retain personal data, associated traffic data and other logs for a period of one year from the date of processing such data . After that period of one year, if retention is not mandated under any law, then it must be deleted. 48 hours before deleting the personal data, the Data Fiduciary must inform the Data Principal that their data will be deleted unless the Data Principal logs into their account or otherwise contacts the Data Fiduciary for the performance of the purpose of the processing of that data, or to exercise her rights in relation to that data. This is an important new obligation under the DPDP Rules that was not present in the draft rules. [Rule 8(3)] Mention the business contact details of a Data Protection Officer (phone number or email address ), or any employee who can answer questions about processing from any Data Principal. [Rule 9] Collect verifiable consent for processing data of children or persons with disabilities . [The draft Rules dealt with this under one Rule, but the notified Rules have split the same into two Rules, Rule 10 and 11 ]. Share personal data outside India in compliance with any orders released by the Central Government. While such orders have not yet been notified with respect to any country, the Government is likely to notify such orders soon. [Rule 15] . 3. Aspects Awaiting Further Clarity for Compliance The Government is yet to notify the standards that determine the basis for declaring any Data Fiduciary as a Significant Data Fiduciary. Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) have greater obligations under the DPDPA and Rules and are likely to be determined on the basis of number of users. The Government will soon also release orders dealing with cross-border transfer of personal data. Such orders are likely to restrict transfers to certain territories and must be complied with.

SEBI in a circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CFD-PoD-1/P/CIR/202  dated September 19, 2025 has made following modifications to its framework  on Social Stock Exchange. These changes reflect an increasing tendency to track impact as a metric of credibility of non-profits. The modifications were made to align with one amendment made in the  Issue of Capital and Disclosure Regulations (ICDR ) and four amendments Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements  (LODR) . Below is a summary of key changes.   I.                 Definition of Not-for-Profit Organisations In the amendment in the ICDR Regulations, the list of entities that can be considered as an ‘not for profit organisations ( NPOs )’ has been expanded which would allow a greater number of entities to be registered and listed in the Social Stock Exchange ( SSE ). A trust registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in States that have not enacted a specified Trusts Law will also be considered as an NPO. The amendment now extends the eligibility to not only include entities registered under Companies Act, 2013 but also, the entities registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Through this amendment the list of entities that can be considered ‘not for profit organisations’ has been widened.   Table I. The amendments made in Regulation 292A of ICDR Sr. No. Original Language Amended Language a. Entities must be registered in India as one of the below: i) a charitable trust registered under the public trust statue of the relevant State ii) a charitable trust registered under The Societies Registration Act, 1860 iii) a charitable trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 iv) a company incorporated under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013   Entities must be registered in India as one of the below: i)  a charitable trust registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 ii)  a charitable trust registered under the public trust statue of the relevant State iii)  a Trust registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) with the relevant Sub-Registrar in those States that have not enacted the law governing public trust iv)  a    charitable    society registered   under   the Societies Registration Act, 1860 v)  a   charitable society registered under   the Societies Registration Act of the relevant State vi)  a company registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) including   a   company registered under section 25 of the repealed Companies Act, 1956.   II.                Annual disclosure by NPOs on SSE   The entities registered in Social Stock Exchange are now required to make the following disclosures as per the updated timeline. Before the amendment, all disclosures were to be made within 60 days from the end of the financial year. However, after the amendment, the timeline has been divided into two parts. Some disclosures continue to follow the previous 60-day from the end of the financial year, while others (all financial disclosures) must now be made on an annual basis by 31st October each year or before the due date for filing the income tax return as prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whichever is later.   Entities that have raised funds through the social stock exchanges are expected to submit an Annual Assessment Report on an annual basis by 31st October each year or before the due date for filing the income tax return as prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whichever is later.   The Annual Assessment report  shall cover at least 67% of the program expenditure in the previous financial year. The report shall be assessed by Social Impact Assessors and the certification provided shall be submitted along with the Annual Impact Report.   In case of entities registered under SSE but that have not raised funds ,  can submit a self-certified AIR.   The term Social Auditors has been substituted with the term Social Impact Assessor,   in the ICDR regulations.   “Social Impact Assessment Organisation”   is now defined as any entity which has (i)  employed Social Impact Assessor(s) with a track record of minimum three years in conducting social impact assessment; or (ii)  employed at least two full time Social Impact Assessors, each with a minimum experience of three years, in conducting social impact assessment, who shall sign the social impact assessment report   Table II. Annual  disclosure  by  NPOs on  SSE  which  have  either  raised  funds through SSE or are registered with SSE in terms of Regulation 91C of the LODR Regulation .   Sr. No. Original Language Amended Language a. The following disclosures would be made by the NPOs on an Annual Basis (i.e.) within 60 days from end of financial year: a. Disclosures on General aspects: i. Name of the organisation (legal and popular name) ii. Location of headquarters and location of operations iii. Vision / Mission / Purpose iv. Organisational goals, activities, products and services v. Outreach of organisation (Type and number of direct, indirect and institutional beneficiaries /stakeholders reached) vi. Scale of operations (Including Employee and Volunteer strength) vii. Details of top donors or investors of organisation list of Top 5 donors or investors (budget wise) viii. Details of top 5 programs in disclosure period list of Top 5 interventions/programs (budget wise)   b. Disclosures on Governance aspects: i. Ownership and legal form ii. Governance Structure (outlines board and management committee structures, mandates, membership, charters, policies and internal controls) iii. Details of governing body including names of the members of the body iv. Executives with key responsibilities v. Number of meetings by governing body and other committees formed   by   them along with attendance and   the process of performance review vi. Organisation level potential risks and mitigation plan vii. Reporting of related party transactions. viii. Mechanisms for advice and concerns about ethics, along with conflict of interest and communicating other critical concerns ix. Remuneration Policies x. Stakeholder grievance, process of grievance redressal and number of grievances received and resolved xi. Compliance management process and statement of compliance from senior decision maker xii. Organisation   registration   certificate   and   other   licenses   and certifications (12A, 80G, FCRA, GST, etc.)   c. Disclosures on Financial aspects: i. Financial Statement (Balance Sheet, Income statement and Cash Statement). Also program wise fund utilisation for the year ii. Auditors report and auditor details The following disclosures would be made by the NPOs on an Annual Basis (i.e.) within 60 days from end of financial year:   a.  Disclosures on General aspects: i.   Name of the organisation (legal and popular name) ii.   Location of headquarters and location of operations iii.   Vision / Mission / Purpose iv.   Organisational goals, activities, products and services v.   Scale of operations (Including Employee and Volunteer strength)       b.  Disclosures on Governance aspects : i. Ownership and legal form ii. Governance Structure (outlines board and management committee structures, mandates, membership, charters, policies and internal controls) iii. Details of governing body including names of the members of the body iv. Executives with key responsibilities v. Number of meetings by governing body and other committees formed by them along with attendance and the process of performance review vi. Organisation level potential risks and mitigation plan vii.   Mechanisms for advice and concerns about ethics, along with conflict of interest and communicating other critical concerns viii. Remuneration Policies ix.  Stakeholder grievance, process of grievance redressal and number of grievances received and resolved x. Organisation registration certificate   and other licenses and certifications (12A, 80G, FCRA, GST, etc.)   2.  The following disclosures would be made by the NPOs on an Annual Basis of the financial year by October 31st of each year or before the due date of filing the income tax return as prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whichever is later:   a.  Disclosures on General aspects: i.   Outreach of organisation (Type and number of direct, indirect and institutional beneficiaries / stakeholders reached) ii.   Details of top donors or investors of organisation - List of Top 5 donors or investors (budget wise) iii.   Details of top 5 programs in disclosure period - List of Top 5 interventions/programs (budget wise) b.  Disclosures on Governance aspects: i.   Reporting of related party transactions ii.   Compliance management process and statement of compliance from senior decision maker   c.  Disclosures on Financial aspects: i.   Financial Statement (Balance Sheet, Income statement and Cash Statement). Also program wise fund utilisation for the year ii.   Auditors report and auditor details.   b.   All Social Enterprises (SEs) will have to provide a duly audited Annual Impact Report (AIR) to SSE within 90 days from the end of Financial Year.   All Social Enterprises which have raised funds using SSE will have to provide duly assessed Annual Impact Report (AIR) to SSE by October 31st of each year or before the due date of filing the income tax return as prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whichever is later.   c. In case an NPO is only registered without listing any security, the AIR must cover the NPO’s significant activities, intervention, programs or projects during the year and the methodology for determination of significance must be explained.  Additionally, if there is an activity, intervention, program or projects covered under a listed security, it will qualify as a significant activity, intervention, program or project.   In case an NPO is registered without listing any security, the AIR will be self- reported and must cover the NPO’s significant activities, intervention, programs or projects during the year and the methodology for determination of significance must be explained. Additionally, if there is an activity, intervention, program or projects covered under a listed security, it will qualify as a significant activity, intervention, program or project. The annual impact report shall cover 67% of the program expenditure in the previous financial year.   d. The AIR shall be audited by Social Auditors, and the SEs  shall disclose the report of the Social Auditor along with AIR.   The AIR shall be assessed by Social Impact Assessors,  and the SEs shall disclose the report of Social Impact Assessors along with AIR.   The evolution of the SSE, from its conceptualisation to its active implementation and continuous refinement, underscores India's progressive approach to social finance. We will continue to track these developments and provide further insights in our upcoming editions.

The Supreme Court in Sankar Padam Thapa vs. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal  establishes that a Trust lacks independent legal personality, holding that trustees or chairpersons who issue cheques on its behalf are personally liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act),1881 with legal responsibility resting on them rather than the Trust. Background The Agriculture Crafts Trades and Studies Group of Institutions (ACTS Group), which managed William Carey University in Shillong, faced severe financial difficulties and consequently entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 12 October 2017 with the Orion Education Trust, transferring the university’s administrative and financial control. The Respondent, Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal, Chairman of Orion Education Trust, issued a cheque of ₹5 crores to the Appellant, Sankar Padam Thapa, for facilitating the transition process. When the cheque was presented for payment, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds, leading to the issuance of a statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the filing of a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act and Section 420 of the IPC. The Trial Court took cognisance and summoned the Respondent, but the High Court of Meghalaya, by its order dated 21 November 2022, quashed the complaint on the ground that the Orion Education Trust, on whose behalf the cheque was issued, was not made an accused. The Appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that a Trust is not a juristic person and that proceedings against its Trustee or Chairman are valid even in the absence of the Trust being arrayed as a party, prompting the Court to examine the extent of trustee liability under the NI Act. Key Findings of the Supreme Court on Trusts and Liability under the NI Act Trust is Not a Juristic Person : The Supreme Court reaffirmed that under Sections 3   and Section  13  of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, a Trust is only an obligation attached to the ownership of property and does not have a separate legal identity. It cannot sue or be sued in its own name. The trustees, who hold and manage the Trust property, alone have the authority to initiate or defend legal proceedings. Legal rights and liabilities therefore rest with the trustees, not with the Trust itself. Complaint Maintainable Against Trustees Without Making the Trust an Accused: The Court held that when a cheque issued on behalf of a Trust is dishonoured, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is maintainable against the trustee or chairman who signed the cheque, even if the Trust itself is not made an accused. Since a Trust has no independent existence in law, all acts done in its name are, in effect, acts of the trustees, who are responsible for the financial obligations arising from them. Trustees’ Personal Liability under the NI Act Strengthened: The judgement underscored that the person who signs a dishonoured cheque carries primary criminal liability under Section 138. Referring to earlier rulings in SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla (2005) and K.K. Ahuja vs. V.K. Vora (2009), the Court reiterated that signatories and managing heads are responsible for the conduct of an organisation’s business. Accordingly, a trustee or chairman cannot avoid liability by claiming that the Trust should have been made a party. Trusts Cannot Be Equated with Companies or Associations of Individuals: The Court made a clear distinction between a Trust and a company. While a company incorporated under the Companies Act is a juristic person with a distinct legal identity, a Trust is merely a fiduciary relationship without such status. The Court rejected the argument that a Trust could be treated as an “association of individuals” under Section 141 of the NI Act, thereby limiting vicarious liability only to trustees. Reaffirmation of Trustees’ Duty to Defend Legal Proceedings: Relying on Section 13 of the Indian Trusts Act, the Court noted that trustees are under a statutory duty to maintain and defend all suits concerning Trust property. This provision reinforces that trustees, and not the Trust, are accountable in all legal and financial matters, acting as the legal representatives of the Trust. Limited Scope of the Judgement: Finally, the Court clarified that its findings are confined to the context of the NI Act. While the ruling does not extend to other areas of law where Trusts may be treated differently, it sets a clear precedent for determining responsibility and liability in financial transactions involving Trusts. The Court held that the complaint was legally maintainable and that the trustee must face trial for the alleged offence.   Implications and Key Takeaways for Non-Profit and Charitable Organisations Trustees’ Personal Liability Reinforced: The ruling firmly establishes that trustees who sign cheques on behalf of a Trust are personally liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured. The Trust, lacking independent legal status, cannot shield them from prosecution. Trustees must verify fund availability and authorisation before issuing cheques to avoid personal criminal liability. No Juristic Immunity for Trust-based Entities: The Court clarified that a Trust is not a juristic person and cannot sue or be sued in its own name. Hence, non-profit Trusts do not enjoy the limited liability protections available to companies or societies.Trustees’ personal accountability extends to all financial and contractual acts carried out in the Trust’s name. Strengthened Need for Governance and Documentation: As trustees bear personal responsibility, maintaining proper records of authorisations, financial resolutions, and board decisions becomes critical. Non-profits should adopt transparent governance frameworks and documented approval processes for all monetary transactions. Uniform Legal Position Across Jurisdictions: The Supreme Court overruled conflicting High Court judgements that had earlier recognised Trusts as juristic persons. This provides clarity and uniformity across India. Non-profits must now align their compliance frameworks with this settled interpretation that liability lies with trustees, not the Trust. Heightened Compliance and Risk Management Obligations:  Trusts must adopt proactive measures such as regular audits, compliance training, and risk assessments to protect both the organisation and trustees. Implication on Public Charitable Trusts:Though public charitable Trusts are not governed by the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, the Supreme Court’s reasoning applies equally to them. Since such Trusts lack separate legal personality, all financial and legal responsibility rests with their trustees. Accordingly, trustees must exercise due care and accountability in managing transactions undertaken in the Trust’s name.

Since April 2023, India’s  new income tax regime   has become the  default  option for taxpayers. Many non-profit leaders may only now begin to see if this change has affected their organisations’ donations from individual donors. What changed? Under the  old regime , taxpayers could claim deductions on various expenses and contributions, including  donations to charitable organisations under Section 80G . This meant that a part of the money they donated reduced their taxable income. Under the  new regime , taxpayers get the benefit of  lower tax rates  but must give up most deductions and exemptions - including 80G. In other words, if an individual opts for the new regime, they no longer receive tax savings for donations to charitable organisations. While this change has been in force since  FY 2023-24 , its effects on giving may only become visible now, as more people file returns and make financial decisions under the new rules. See  table A  for a comparison of the old and new regimes vis-à-vis 80G. Type of Donation Old Regime New Regime PM National Relief Fund / PM CARES Fund / other notified national funds ✅ 100% deduction allowed (no limit) ❌ No deduction Approved NGOs / charitable trusts (most non-profits) ✅ 50% deduction allowed (subject to 10% of gross total income limit) ❌ No deduction Certain approved institutions (scientific research, rural development, etc.) ✅ 100% or 50% deduction, depending on notification ❌ No deduction Cash donations  (above ₹2,000 in cash) ❌ Not eligible ❌ Not eligible (unchanged) Corporate CSR spends ❌ Not covered under 80G (CSR is a statutory obligation, not voluntary donation) ❌ Not covered (unchanged) Table A: Old vs. New Regime comparison chart  for donations under  Section 80G   Why does this matter for non-profits? Individual giving may dip For many small and mid-sized donors, the 80G benefit was a tangible incentive for reduced tax burden. Without it, some may reduce the frequency or size of their contributions. Institutional philanthropy is less affected Large domestic philanthropies, family foundations, and CSR funding do not rely on 80G for their grants. Their obligations and motivations remain the same. But NGOs that rely heavily on  retail giving  - monthly donors, fundraising campaigns, community drives - may feel the pinch. Ripple effects for fundraising strategy Non-profits may need to place greater emphasis on the  impact and emotional value of giving , rather than tax savings. Storytelling, transparency, and donor engagement could become even more important. Potential uneven impact across the sector Organisations with strong cause-based or identity-based appeal may continue to attract donors, while those that leaned more on tax benefits could face sharper drops. Philanthropic Funding Trends The general narrative has been that the contribution of retail, HNI and UHNI donations together contributes more than 50% of private philanthropic funding in India. This move is likely to impact this narrative. (See Figure 1) Figure 1: Philanthropic Funding Trends (Source: India Philanthropy Report 2025) Why did the government do this? The move is part of a broader push to create a  simpler tax system  with fewer exemptions, lower rates, and less scope for misuse. The government’s message seems to be that giving should be a  voluntary act of social responsibility , not a tax-planning tool. What should non-profits do? Watch your donor mix : Track how many of your donors are individuals, and whether their giving patterns change in the coming year. Adjust your messaging : Move away from highlighting “tax savings” and focus more on your mission and impact. Engage loyal supporters : Donors who are motivated by belief in your cause may continue giving, even without tax breaks. Why this data matters The  new tax regime is not new , it has been effective since  FY 2023-24. But   It’s too early to say how big the impact will be. To understand the real consequences for the non-profit sector, we hope that the government must track and publish data  on charitable giving trends under the new regime. Without this evidence, non-profits and policymakers will be left guessing about whether critical social causes are losing out on funding.