REGULAR TUTORIAL HOME,MANIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, IMPHAL, MANIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Form 56B is not required for institutions with gross receipts below ₹5 Crore claiming exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Due to procedural non-compliance and the need for a fair hearing, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an educational institution, claimed exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) but was denied by the AO and CIT(A) for various procedural and substantive reasons, including filing the wrong ITR and making cash expenses. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) despite procedural lapses and cash expenses, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 40A(3),Section 37,Section 139(4C)(e)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2023-24 dated 17.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:
"
General Ground: Order Bad in Law
1 That the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter "CIT(A)"] under section 250 dated 17/11/2025 is bad in law, contrary to the facts, and violates the principles of natural justice.
Gross Error of Law regarding
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 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026