HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaalh0058D …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. …..Respondent.

charitable purposes. vi) Claim of large value refund. vii) Large receipts from other income. viii) Trust executing contracts, providing professional services, earning commission incomes or rent (verification as per proviso to sectin 2(15) or any other section). ix) High refund claimed by Trust. x) Large amount of income accumulated or set apart by Trust. xi) Large claim of depreciation

ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.581/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. Pan:Aaalh0058D …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.568/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2020-21) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. M/S. Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Hyderabad. …..Respondent.

charitable purposes. vi) Claim of large value refund. vii) Large receipts from other income. viii) Trust executing contracts, providing professional services, earning commission incomes or rent (verification as per proviso to sectin 2(15) or any other section). ix) High refund claimed by Trust. x) Large amount of income accumulated or set apart by Trust. xi) Large claim of depreciation

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

charitable\ntrust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act.\n23.\nAs discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the\nassessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to\nonly CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by\nan assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and\nClean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

UNNATHI LEISURE VENTURES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.582/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Unnathi Leisure Ventures Vs. Dy. Cit (P) Ltd Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan: Aabcu7058C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2024 आदेश/Order

depreciation was claimed. In response, the assessee submitted that it has taken on lease a land from M/s. Palanati Ram Reddy Charitable Trust

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

depreciation should be allowed as a deduction while computing income for a charitable trust, even though the acquisition of the asset

RAMANAIDU CHARITABLE TRUST ,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION)-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramanaidu Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, Exemptions-3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaatr 0554 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Smt. Amisha Gupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, Exemptions-3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAATR 0554 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Smt. Amisha Gupta, DR Date of hearing: 10/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 10/09/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT (A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10038/ITO

PRATHIMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

depreciation etc. was being claimed and such amount of notional deduction was not being applied for charitable purpose. As a result, double benefit was being claimed by the trusts

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Charitable Trust [2011] 13 taxmann.com 50 (Hyderabad), wherein it was held that "it was not open to Tribunal to entertain second application which was filed on same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on alleged premise that there was an error apparent in order of Tribunal". Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 4. Reliance is also placed

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Charitable Trust [2011] 13 taxmann.com 50 (Hyderabad), wherein it was held that "it was not open to Tribunal to entertain second application which was filed on same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on alleged premise that there was an error apparent in order of Tribunal". Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 4. Reliance is also placed

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Charitable Trust [2011] 13 taxmann.com 50 (Hyderabad), wherein it was held that "it was not open to Tribunal to entertain second application which was filed on same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on alleged premise that there was an error apparent in order of Tribunal". Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 4. Reliance is also placed

THE ICFAI SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 The Icfai Society, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. (Exemptions), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaajt0214B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. (Appeared Through Virtual Mode) Revenue By: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2024 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement:

depreciation which was not charged against income. 10. That the order of the CIT (A) is bad in law and facts in arbitrarily rejecting the condonation of delay petition in filing Form 35 for following reason; The appeal has been already decided on merit through a speaking order. (ii) The CIT (A) rejected the condonation of delay petition after

SRI TALAPAKA ANNAMACHARYA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(EXEMPTIONS) , TIRUPATI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sri Talapaka Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Annamacharya Education (Exemptions), Society, Tirupati. Kadapa. Pan : Aadts6112L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram. Revenue By: Sri Rohit Majumdar For Cit Dr Yvst Sai Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/03/2022

trust or societies, as the case may be. 7.10 As such, there Is a double deduction of the same amount, once in the form of application of surplus income towards acquisition of fixed assets at one go and, secondly, in the form of depreciation on the fixed assets over a period of time. In view of this, in order

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

Trust, the activities carried on by the assessee need to be treated as education only. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not granting depreciation for assets acquired in earlier years since the capital expenditure was not allowed by Revenue during assessments completed. The learned Assessing Officer erred in granting lesser credit for TDS compared to the claim in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Depreciation claimed at Rs. 2,11,03,552/-, was incurred towards the object of the society, even though the assessee could not produce evidence for the new assets added during the year and failed to prove that the assets were put to use towards the objects of society. C.O. Nos.19 to 24/Hyd/2022 7. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has erred