Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (4) TMI 1705

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), the appellant has challenged order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "G", Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment proceeding. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant, a charitable society registered under the provisions of Section 12AA of the Act of 1961, had filed its return of income for assessment year 2017-18. The appellant's assessment was made vide order dated 22.12.2019 passed under Section 144 of the Act of 1961. According to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... matter. He submitted that the CIT(A) is having a concurrent jurisdiction and that the appellate proceedings are continuation of the assessment proceedings and if the CIT(A) has seen the documents and satisfied itself about the correctness of the expenditure and affairs of the appellant-society, the Tribunal ought not to have remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. 6. He further argued that the appellant's registration under Section 12AA of the Act of 1961 has not been cancelled and since the same is continuing, the Assessing Officer could not have confined the carry forward of five years' income to 50%. He submitted that the proposition before the Tribunal was revenue neutral and therefore, there was no reason to interfere. ....