UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

02 appeals are arising from the 2 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 assessment orders passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], for the assessment years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 and 04 appeals are arising from the penalty orders passed u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, respectively

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

02 appeals are arising from the 2 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 assessment orders passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], for the assessment years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 and 04 appeals are arising from the penalty orders passed u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, respectively

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

02 appeals are arising from the 2 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 assessment orders passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], for the assessment years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 and 04 appeals are arising from the penalty orders passed u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, respectively

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

02 appeals are arising from the 2 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 assessment orders passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], for the assessment years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 and 04 appeals are arising from the penalty orders passed u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, respectively

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVATHANAM,SECUNDERBAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

02 appeals are arising from the 2 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 assessment orders passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], for the assessment years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017 and 04 appeals are arising from the penalty orders passed u/sec.271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017, respectively

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

charitable purposes as mandated by section 11 of the I.T. Act. The learned CIT (A) deleted the addition and Revenue is not in appeal before us, therefore, we are not concerned with the same. However, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,00,06,345/- as unexplained investment which has been sustained by the learned CIT (A) which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI CHAITANYA EDUCATIONAL COMMITTE, VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

charitable society enjoying the benefit of Sec. 12 has no relevancy to determine whether the income of the society was used for the benefit of the specified persons u/s. 13(3) of the IT Act, in violation of the provisions of Sec. 13(1)(c), 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) of the IT Act. 5. In the facts

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

trust / authority in spending the amount(s) is not in accordance with its objects. 4) CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the receipt of Rs.545,15,27,213/- under layout regulation scheme is a part and partial of the assessee authority besides the fact that the assessee is in receipt of the same. 5) CIT(A) ought

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

trust / authority in spending the amount(s) is not in accordance with its objects. 4) CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the receipt of Rs.545,15,27,213/- under layout regulation scheme is a part and partial of the assessee authority besides the fact that the assessee is in receipt of the same. 5) CIT(A) ought

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year such income so accumulated to set apart would not be included in the total income of the previous year provided the assessee filed an application before the Assessing Officer for being set apart for investment in future. (b) It clearly indicates that the appellant's income should have been exempted

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

AROGYA SAHAYATHA, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT, TELANGANA STATE EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST, ,HYDERABAD vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.

Trust, Vijayawada. PAN – AACTA 1829M Assessee by: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Revenue by: Shri Sibendu Moharana Date of hearing: 04/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 25/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant batch of four appeals pertains to as many assessees mentioned in the cause title. Relevant details of these cases are as follows: :- 2 -: ITA No. 1131/H/17

SAHAYATHA PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE EMPLOYEES THRIFT AND BENEVOLENT MUTUAL ASSOCIATION,VIJAYAWADA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS,, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.

Trust, Vijayawada. PAN – AACTA 1829M Assessee by: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Revenue by: Shri Sibendu Moharana Date of hearing: 04/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 25/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant batch of four appeals pertains to as many assessees mentioned in the cause title. Relevant details of these cases are as follows: :- 2 -: ITA No. 1131/H/17

SAHAYATHA, PROHIBITION & EXCISE DEPARTMENT, TELANGANA STATE EMPLOYEES THRIFT AND BENEVOLENT MUTUAL ASSOCIATION, HYDERABADRUST, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.

Trust, Vijayawada. PAN – AACTA 1829M Assessee by: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayana Revenue by: Shri Sibendu Moharana Date of hearing: 04/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 25/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: The instant batch of four appeals pertains to as many assessees mentioned in the cause title. Relevant details of these cases are as follows: :- 2 -: ITA No. 1131/H/17

KANIPAKAM HARI PRASAD REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

charitable activity by doing the construction and interiors out of its own pocket of its unaccounted income towards the interiors without charging to the villa owner including the appellant. The appellant to an extent has the audacity to believe that the adjudicating authority in the undersigned is too naive to understand and appreciate the circumstances and the document

GUDURI VENKATA RAJU ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

charitable activity by doing the construction and interiors out of its own pocket of its unaccounted income towards the interiors without charging to the villa owner including the appellant. The appellant to an extent has the audacity to believe that the adjudicating authority in the undersigned is too naive to understand and appreciate the circumstances and the document