JUVE AKHADA DNYAN VIKAS SAUNSTHA,TONCA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 March 2026Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Ld. DR had no objections. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT (Exemptions) passed under Section 12AB(I)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. During the hearing, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary legal issue was the validity of the order passed by the CIT (Exemptions) under Section 12AB(I)(b)(ii), which became moot due to the assessee's withdrawal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB(I)(b)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G D PADMAHSHALI

Hearing: 05.03.2026Pronounced: 05.03.2026

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 05.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)(CIT(E)), Bangalore passed u/sec12AB(I)(b)(ii) of the Act.

2.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assesse wants to withdraw the appeal and has filed a letter dated 02-03-2026 mentioning the withdrawal of the above

Juve AkhadaDnyan Vikas Saunstha.. appeal filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the Ld. DR has no objections. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assesse is treated as withdrawn and is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.03.2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →