ZESHTA DEVI PRABANADK COMMITTEE,SRINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without properly appreciating the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(E) who rejected their application for registration under Section 80G. The assessee argued that the CIT(E) made the decision without proper appreciation of facts and without giving sufficient opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the Section 80G application without affording proper opportunity of hearing and adequate appreciation of facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH ‘DB’ : AMRITSAR
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [“Ld. CIT(E)”, for short] dated 14.01.2026 for the Assessment Year 2027-28. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that an application for adjournment is filed by him. However, the issue being small, we reject the adjournment application and proceeded to hear the case.
At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the submitted that the ld. CIT (E) rejected the application u/s 80G merely on the presumption that the society is religious entity without considering the charitable objects is unjust and harsh. He submitted that the Trust has been followi
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
- Savan Dayalal Ladani, Rajkot vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1)…ITA 575/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Pareshbhai Savjibhai Khunt, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2)(3), RajkotITA 842/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 777/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
- Global University Foundation, Hyderabad vs CIT(Exemption), HyderabadITA 776/HYD/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026