RSP LEARNING FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT EXMENPTION DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 348/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2025AY 2024-25Bench: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)6 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 upheld the order of the CIT(E), finding that the assessee's activities were commercial in nature and failed to satisfy the genuineness of charitable activities as per section 2(15) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee, RSP Learning Foundation, sought approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(E) rejected the application, observing that the assessee's activities with APMDC were commercial and not charitable.

What were the issues?

Whether the activities of the assessee, involving providing teaching staff under a contract with APMDC, constitute charitable activities eligible for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80G(5),Section 2(15)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 08.09.2025Pronounced: 08.09.2025

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM:

1.

The instant appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 21.11.2024 [DIN & Notice No. ITBA/EXM/F/EXM45/2024- 25/1070664712(1) passed by the CIT(exemption), Delhi under Clause (ii)(b)(B) of second proviso to section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2024-25.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. We proceed to dispose of the appeal, ex parte, qua the assessee. We have heard learned DR and perused the material available on record.

3. It is seen that the learned CIT(E) in his elaborate order has observed that the applicant has got work order from Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) for providing 5 teaching staffs to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Majhaulpath with a monthly payment of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the applicant. The applicant has provided teaching staff to the school and paid monthly remuneration to these teachers which has been claimed as expenses. The learned CIT(E) has categorically observed that the payment made by APMDC is not a CSR fund or any type of donation and is only contract/agreement between RSP Learning Foundation and APMDC on a consideration of payment. The learned CIT(E) held the activities of applicant as commercial in nature and do not come under charitable activities and failed to satisfy the genuineness of activities as per section 2(15) of the Act. He, accordingly, rejected applicant’s application filed in Form 10AB for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(iii). No documentary evidence, if any, has been filed by the appellant in support of its claim so as to take a contrary view in the matter. Accordingly, order of learned CIT(E) is upheld.

Order pronounced in open court on 08.09.2025.

More judgments on Section 80G(5)

All 2,236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80G(5) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →