PRAGATI MAGASWARGIYA MAHILA SANSTH,BHANDARA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on account of a bona fide and technical procedural lapse in selecting the wrong clause was not justified. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable institution, applied for regular approval under Section 80G(5) but inadvertently selected an incorrect clause in the online application form. The CIT(E) rejected the application as non-maintainable due to this procedural error.
What were the issues?
Whether a charitable institution's application for regular approval under Section 80G(5) can be rejected solely due to an inadvertent procedural error in selecting an incorrect clause in the online application form.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROYMahila Sansthavs
PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune (for short, “CIT(E)”), dated 18/07/2025; whereby regular approval u/s. 80G(5) has been rejected.
The main issue involved in the present appeal is whether the learned CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the assessee's application for regular approval under section 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely on the ground that an incorrect clause was mentioned in the application.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a charitable institution engaged in carrying out healthcare and social welfare activities. The assessee was granted provisional approval u/s. 80G(5)(vi) o
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 80G(5)
- Nikunj Mahendrabhai Adani, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2026/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 592/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- Shri Brajshiromani Laxmandas Sewa Trust… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura…ITA 591/AGR/2026[2026-2027]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2026-2027
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1491/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- The Divine Life Society, Jaipur vs Exemption Ward 1, JaipurITA 1484/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026