SHASHVAT ANAND AARADHANA TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 515/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 June 20193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had obtained the required registration through a subsequent application. Therefore, the assessee no longer wished to pursue the present appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The application was rejected by the CIT(E) due to incomplete details. During the pendency of the appeal, the assessee filed a fresh application which was allowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal against the rejection of an application for registration under Section 80G(5) is maintainable when a fresh application has been allowed subsequently.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Pronounced: 06/06/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions), Ahmedabad [‘Ld.CIT(E)’ in short] dated 29/12/2017 passed u/s.80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has filed an application in Form No.10G on 08/06/2017 for grant of registration u/s.80G(5) of the Act. Since it failed

ITA No.515/Ahd/2018 Shashvat Anand Aaradhana Trust vs.CIT(E) - 2 - to submit complete details, this application was rejected by the Ld.CIT(E) vide order dated 29/12/2017.

3.

Dissatisfied with this rejection, assessee has come up by way of this appeal. 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, assessee has filed a fresh application along with requisite documents and that application stands allowed. Assessee has been granted registration vide order 29/11/2018, copy of this order has been placed on the record.

5.

In view of the subsequent development, assessee does not want to pursue the present appeal and prayed that same be dismissed as withdrawn. Since assessee has been withdrawing its appeal, therefore we do not have any objection on such request. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the Court on 6th June-2019 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 6/ 06 /2019 ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS

ITA No.515/Ahd/2018 Shashvat Anand Aaradhana Trust vs.CIT(E)

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(Exemptions), Ahmedabad �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation .. 4.6.2019(dictation-pad 4- pages attached at the end of this File) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ..4.6.2019 3. Other Member... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…….6.6.19 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk…………………6.6.19 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

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 →