Itta/688/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Govats Foundation
High Court
30 Oct 2017 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/688/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Govats Foundation
Date of order
30 Oct 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itta/688/2017 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Govats Foundation, the High Court (2017) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: As the view taken by the Tribunal in Ahinsa Education (cited supra) was allowed to become final, this Appeal is dismissed. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 30[th] October, 2017 lur _____________________ (Challa Kodanda Ram, J)
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
and
The Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda RamITTA No.688 of 2017Date: 30.10.2017
Between:
The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad and
… Petitioner
Govata Foundation
Hyderabad
…Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.J.V.Prasad Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Dept.,
The Court made the following:
Judgment: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy)
The respondent has filed ITA.No.1028/Hyd/2014 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench A, Hyderabad, feeling aggrieved by the direction issued by the Director of Income Tax to obtain registration from the competent authority of the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), within six months, while granting registration Section 12 AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
under
The Tribunal has allowed the Appeal based on a Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Ahinsa Education and Health Trust, Hyderabad[1], wherein it was held that the Director of Income Tax (E) cannot insist upon obtaining registration under Section 43 of the Act.
In the Memorandum of grounds, the appellant has neither
disputed that the issue decided in Ahinsa Education (cited supra)
is not identical to that raised in the present case nor pleaded that the said order was questioned in an Appeal. In the absence of
such a plea, it is reasonable to presume that the order in Ahinsa Education (cited supra) has attained finality.
As the view taken by the Tribunal in Ahinsa Education (cited supra) was allowed to become final, this Appeal is dismissed.
______________________
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 30[th] October, 2017 lur
_____________________
(Challa Kodanda Ram, J)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.