JABALPUR GRAIN AND SEED MERCHANT,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), BHOPAL

ITA 137/JAB/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 May 20262 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the rejection of registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. During the hearing, the assessee's representative sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal should be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, MP

Before: HON’BLE SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI

For Appellant: Mr Sukesh Kumar [‘Ld. AR’]
For Respondent: Mr Shravan Kumar Meena [‘Ld. DR’]
Pronounced: 12/05/2026

PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The assessee filed present appeal challenging the DIN & Order

No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2025-26/1087723675(1) dt.

22/03/2026 passed u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption),

Bhopal rejecting to grant registration u/s 12A(ac)(ii) of the Act. ITAT-Jabalpur Jabalpur Grain and Seed Marchant vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) ITA No. 137/JAB/2026 AY: 2026-27

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR sought our attention

to the appellant’s letter dt. 24/04/20

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 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →