DAYANANDA ARYA VEDIC PUBLIC SCHOOL,BHUBANESWAR vs. CIT, EXEMPTION, HEDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal as they had already obtained the required registration. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the CIT(E). Subsequently, the assessee filed a petition to withdraw the appeal. The ground for withdrawal was that the assessee had already availed registration under Section 10(23C) of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be dismissed as withdrawn.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Before: ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA & ARUN KHODPIA
O R D E R
Per C.M.Garg g, JM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the or This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the or This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 17.8.2020 CIT(E), Hyderabad dated 17.8.2020 for the assessment year for the assessment year 2019-20.
Vide petition dated 11.3.2022, the assessee sought to withdraw the Vide petition dated 11.3.2022, the assessee sought to withdraw the Vide petition dated 11.3.2022, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal filed before the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee has appeal filed before the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee has appeal filed before the Tribunal on the ground that the assessee has already availed regi already availed registration u/s.10(23C) of the Act, to which, ld CIT DR did 23C) of the Act, to which, ld CIT DR did not have any objection. not have any objection. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced on Order pronounced on 11 /3/2022. Sd/- sd/ sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (Arun Khodpia) (Chandra Mohan Garg Chandra Mohan Garg) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER P a g e 1 | 2 Assessment Year : 2019-2020 Cuttack; Dated 11/03/2022 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Dayananda Arya Vedic Public School, Sishupalgarh, Puri Road, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent. CIT (Exemptions), Hyderabad 3. The CIT(A)-, Bhubaneswar 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//
More judgments on Section 10(23C)
- Sheo Narayan Trust, Khajpura vs CIT Exemption, PatnaITA 554/PAT/2026[2025-2026]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2025-2026
- Gurukul Shiksha Sanstha, Chandrapur vs ITO Ward - 3, Exemp, NagpurITA 549/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Sri Jawahar Education Trust, Chamarajanagar vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 1…ITA 1735/BANG/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Neuro Spinal Services and Research Society… vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption…ITA 1601/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2025-26
- Samudayik Kendra Subhash Nagar Prabhand… vs Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, JaipurITA 1440/JPR/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2027-28
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026