SAURABH MITTAL FOUONDATIOON,DELHI vs. WARD EXEMP 2(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5184/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 July 2025AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity for hearing and filing evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's application for registration under Section 80G(5) was rejected by the CIT(E) because their application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) had already been rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the Section 80G(5) application was justified based on the rejection of the Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) application, and whether a fresh opportunity for hearing should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate &, Shri Vir Singh, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Hearing: 03.07.2025Pronounced: 30.07.2025

Assessment Year: 2024-25 Saurabh Mittal Foundation, Vs Ward Exemp 2(1), D-49, Second Floor, Delhi. Sarita Vihar, Madanpur Khadar Mark, Delhi – 110 076. PAN: AACBS5303G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate & Shri Vir Singh, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), New Delhi, rejecting application u/s 80G(5) by holding that the application filed by the assessee in Form 10AB for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) had already been rejected.

2.

Heard and perused the records. The application of the assessee u/s 80G(5) has been rejected on the basis that the application for registration u/s

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →