Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while ...

Court Rules Differential Treatment of Trusts for Section 80G Approval Unconstitutional; No Inherent Right to Extensions.

April 13, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax HC

Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while the respondents had the authority to extend the time limit, there was no valid reason provided for the differential treatment between existing and new trusts regarding Section 80G approval. The court noted that the classification lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, rendering it arbitrary and unconstitutional. - The court held that the petitioners did not have an inherent right to claim further extensions of time, even if an initial extension was granted by the respondents. The extension of time was considered an act of benevolence rather than a creation of vested rights on the part of the petitioners.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while ...

Court Rules Differential Treatment of Trusts for Section 80G Approval Unconstitutional; No Inherent Right to Extensions.

April 13, 2024

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

Rule 86A of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which allows blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger, has been held unconstitutional by the High Court...

Challenge to an interim arbitral award u/s 31(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The key issues are: (1) whether the rejection of an application u/s 16...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

Renewal of approval under proviso (ii) (b) to section 17 (2) (viii) - approval for providing treatment for Covid-19 patients - Since the show cause notice issued relies...

HC upheld validity of Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, dismissing constitutional challenge. Court determined Rule 36(4) derives authority from Section 16 of CGST Act and...

The Delhi High Court examined the validity of assessments u/s 153A and whether the specified authority granted approval in accordance with Section 153D. The court...

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Refund of ocean freight paid under protest - unconstitutional levy or not - The respondent's argument that refund claims based on unconstitutional levies should be...

The High Court held that the levy of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on ocean freight paid by the petitioner was unconstitutional. The Court relied on the...

Taxablity - services of healthcare or predominantly cosmetic in nature or not - Melasma - Birth Mark Treatment - Hypertrichosis Treatments - Hair Laser Comb Treatment -...

The High Court ruled on the constitutional validity of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, which was challenged as being ultra vires...

The High Court addressed the issue of exemption u/s 10(25)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption to the assessee fund, claiming it lost...

The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed the issue of continuing an appeal post the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan. Referring to Rule 22 of CESTAT...

The case involved a challenge to the validity of approval u/s 153D for assessment u/s 153A. The Appellate Tribunal found that the approval granted by the JCIT was...

Quick Updates: