MAA SARASWATI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VILLAGE CHHATWA POST OFFICE JANDWAL DISTT PATHANKOT ,PATHANKOT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL(EXEMPTIONS)-CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 914/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 July 2026AY 2026-20272 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maa Saraswati Educational Society, filed an appeal against an order from the CIT (Exemptions). During the hearing, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the assessee's request to withdraw their appeal before the tribunal.

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate
Hearing: 20.07.2026

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

1.

The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh [“Ld. CIT(E)”, for short] dated 08.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 20206-27. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee wants to withdraw the appeal and in this regard, a letter received on 17.04.2026 is placed on record requesting the same. Accordingly, we allow to withdraw the present appeal and the same is dismissed as withdrawn.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of July, 2026 after the conclusion of the hearing. (U

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.

See plans and prices

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →