Search: charitable trust | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

97 results for “charitable trust”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai959 Delhi668 Chennai416 Bangalore355 Ahmedabad299 Kolkata210 Pune168 Jaipur166 Chandigarh125 Hyderabad97 Cochin96 Karnataka74 Lucknow69 Cuttack69 Indore63 Visakhapatnam49 Surat46 Amritsar44 Rajkot35 Allahabad31 Nagpur25 Raipur23 Jodhpur18 Agra14 Ranchi14 Patna11 Telangana9 Varanasi7 SC6 Kerala6 Guwahati6 Jabalpur5 Panaji4 Dehradun4 Punjab & Haryana3 Orissa1 Rajasthan1 Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 11152 Section 12A148 Exemption79 Section 80G74 Section 143(3)68 Section 143(1)55 Disallowance47 Addition to Income44 Deduction37 Section 154

ACIT,CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S SURESH PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1633/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

Charitable Trust. 8.3 Following the same, I hold that the A.O. was not justified in making a disallowance of Rs.2.25

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

27

Condonation of Delay26

ACIT., EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHARMACEUTICALS EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1199/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Vs. Pharmaceuticals Export Of Income Tax, Promotion Council Of India, Exemptions, Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcp4643C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rv. Chalam, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Balakrishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri RV. Chalam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

trust in India for charitable purposes.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee being a company, e-filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 12-10-2016, declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, to which the assessee responded electronically

ZAHEER AHMED SYED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CC-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 410/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

disallowance of donation. In response, the assessee submitted that, he has paid donation under CSR initiative for charitable purpose and in support of his arguments, filed the registration details of R.R. 4 Zaheer Ahmed Syed Charitable trust

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 145/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

Charitable Trust and Sewa International, which are eligible for 50% Page 2 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Accordingly, assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,33,27,000/-. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 482/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AR

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

Charitable Trust and Sewa International, which are eligible for 50% Page 2 of 13 ITA-TP Nos. 145 & 482/Hyd/2022 deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Accordingly, assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 1,33,27,000/-. 5. Learned Assessing Officer, however, disallowed

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Charitable Trust (supra), has held in Paras-8 to 10 as under : “8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in the instant facts, it is not a case where the assessee had not filed Form 10 in the original return of income, before the due date prescribed of filing return

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Charitable Trust (supra), has held in Paras-8 to 10 as under : “8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that in the instant facts, it is not a case where the assessee had not filed Form 10 in the original return of income, before the due date prescribed of filing return

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 342/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

charitable trust registered u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 341/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri SP. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

charitable trust registered u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 155/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 12ASection 135Section 135(5)Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)

charitable trust registered u/s 80G(5) of the Act. Tax Treatment: The entire CSR expenditure of Rs.2 crores is to be disallowed

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

ITA 582/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 32Section 32(1)

disallowed depreciation and thus, order of the learned CIT (A) should be upheld. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The appellant claims to have constructed building on leasehold land taken from M/s. Palanati Ram Reddy Charitable Trust

DARGA EHAZRAT SYEDSHAH KHWAJADAS CHISTI UNNAYABI PERPETUAL TRUST VATPALLI,VATPALLY SAHREEF vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 567/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Vaishnav, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

charitable trust (2024) 158 Taxmann.com 114 (Ahmedabad-Trib) in support of his contention. 5. Ld. DR submitted that as rightly pointed out by the Ld. CIT(A), in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 2/2020 dated 3/1/2020 the assessee has to file condonation application under section 119(2) of the Act before the concerned CIT with the reasons for belated

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 405/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 408/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 395/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 397/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 396/HYD/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 404/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 394/HYD/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 398/HYD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 36(1)(xii)

disallowances made by the A.O. Aggrieved, the respective assessees are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal which are similar in all the appeals except for the quantum:- “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought