KARNAM BRAHMANAYYA PARVATHI CHOUDARY CHARITABLE TRUST,PRAKSAM vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, GUNTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 116/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 July 2025AY 2023-24Bench: rejecting the registration applied for u/s 12AB of the IT Act;6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found the CIT(Exemptions)'s rejection order to be non-speaking and lacking specific findings or objective analysis of documents. It noted that the CIT had failed to elaborate on any deficiencies or record clear findings on the genuineness of activities or compliance with Section 12AB conditions. The tribunal emphasized the requirement for quasi-judicial authorities to pass reasoned orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT (Exemptions) rejected this application, citing non-compliance and non-verification of the genuineness of the trust's activities due to the trust's failure to provide complete information requested through notices, including details related to an 80G claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in rejecting the Section 12AB registration application without providing adequate opportunity or passing a reasoned order, and whether the rejection based on non-compliance and non-verification was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB,Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench

For Appellant: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

आदेशकी प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. तिर्ााररती/The Assessee : Karnam Brahmanayya Parvathi Choudary Charitable Trust, Thimmasamudram Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District – 523185. Andhra Pradesh. 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, (Exemption Ward), Guntur.

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →