AGRASEN TRUST,BHANDARA vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications as not maintainable because the assessee had filed them under inapplicable statutory provisions. The assessee's failure to take effective steps to rectify the error or respond to the CIT(E)'s notice contributed to this decision.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a charitable institution, applied for regular registration and approval under sections 12A and 80G respectively. While filing the online applications, the assessee inadvertently selected incorrect clauses due to a perceived technical limitation of the e-filing portal. The CIT(E) rejected the applications as not maintainable.
What were the issues?
Whether the rejection of applications for registration and approval due to the inadvertent selection of incorrect statutory clauses in online forms is justified, especially when the assessee claims it was a technical error.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY
PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM:
These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune, (for short, “CIT(E)”), both dated 18/07/2025; whereby applications for regular registration u/s. 12A and for regular approval u/s. 80G(5) have been rejected.
ITA Nos. 564 & 565/NAG/2025 (Agrasen Trust)
The sole issue arising in both the appeals is whether the Ld. CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's applications for regular registration under section 12A and regular approval under section 80G(5) of the Act on the ground of a technical error committed by the assessee while filing the applications.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a charitable in
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 12A
- Desire Foundation, Jaipur vs Income Tax Officer, JaipurITA 1646/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sanskardham Nandan, Mehsana vs CIT(Exemption), AhmedabadITA 2980/AHD/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- 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
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Jharkhand Contractors Association Thro Its President- Pramod Kumar vs. Bharat Coking Coal LTD. Thro Its Chairman Cum Managing DirectorJharkhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Isc Processors Private Limited vs. Superintendent,Range-Iv, Burrabazar Div, CGST And Cx, Kolkata (N) Commissionerate And AnrCalcutta · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Raashi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Bidasaria Fenster Solutions vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 13 Oct 2026
- Amit Agency vs. Commissioner, CGST And CxPatna · 13 Oct 2026