SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty  ||  SC: Upholding Surendra Koli’s Conviction on Rejected Evidence Would Violate Articles 14 and 21  ||  SC: In Execution Petition, Decree-Holder Must Prove Violation by Judgment Debtor  ||  SC: Insurers Must Compensate Accident Victims Despite Policy Breach, Can Recover From Owner  ||  Kerala HC: Long-Term Posting of Same Police Officer at Sabarimala May Affect Transparency, Efficiency  ||  Delhi HC: Post-Dated Cheques Given as Security Attract Section 138 NI Act After Liability Arises  ||  MP High Court: Railways Liable for Deaths on Tracks if it Fails to Take Preventive Measures  ||  Ker HC: NDPS Case Stands Even if Contraband Listed in Ml, if Chemical Report Shows Equivalent Weight  ||  Kerala HC: Father’s Retirement Benefits Can Be Attached for Child Maintenance Despite S.60(1)(g) CPC  ||  Supreme Court: A Decree Declared 'Nullity' Can be Challenged at Any Stage, Including Execution    

AIC Prestige Inspire Foundation Vs. CIT, Exemption, Bhopal - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (20 Jun 2022)

Rejection of second-application for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act without mentioning substantial reason amounts to miscarriage of justice

MANU/II/0027/2022

Direct Taxation

The assessee is a company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, established for various objects set out in the Memorandum of Association (MOA) filed to the Registrar of Companies which are to set up and run Atal Incubation Centres in partnership with Atal Innovation Mission, Niti Ayog, Government of India; encourage entrepreneurship and innovations, etc. The assessee filed first-application to the Learned CIT(E) for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) but the Learned CIT(E) rejected application vide first-order.

The assessee amended its Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association under the Companies Act, 2013 and removed the objects for which the Learned CIT(E) had raised objection. Thereafter, the assessee filed second-application in Form No. 10A alongwith all required documents for grant of registration. However, vide second-order, the Learned CIT(E) has summarily rejected the second-application of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Learned CIT(E), the assessee has filed present appeal.

Although there were objections raised by Learned CIT(E) on the first-application of the assessee, yet the assessee has removed those objections before filing second-application. The Learned CIT(E) has rejected second-application of the assessee with the sole reason that there is no change in objects. Except this one reason, the Learned CIT(E) has not mentioned any other reason to reject the second-application.

The Learned AR has successfully submitted that the objectionable objects had already been removed before filing second-application and this submission of Learned AR has not been controverted by the Learned DR. The rejection of second-application for grant of registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act amounts to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the assessee deserves registration under Section 12AA of the IT Act. Hence, the Learned CIT(E) is directed to grant the registration as applied for by the assessee. Appeal of assessee is allowed.

Tags : APPLICATION   REGISTRATION   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved