MSP PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,JAMGAON vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

ITA 499/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 July 2026AY 2026-273 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the impugned order to be not well-reasoned and set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, MSP Public School Society, applied for approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) rejected the application, stating that the assessee did not have prior valid approval under Section 80G.

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of the application for approval under Section 80G(5)(ii) was justified without considering the provisional approval and the reasons for non-response.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Khandelwal, CA
Hearing: 09/07/2026

Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2026 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), [CIT(E)], Bhopal rejecting the approval under section 80G(5)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

2.

The sole issue, raised vide nine grounds, challenges the rejection of assessee’s application for approval under

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.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)(ii)

All 222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5)(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →