KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,WARANGAL vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. KAKATIYA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, WARANGAL

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts for the year under consideration 3 Building Penalization

SRI VENKATESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

trust or endowments including Math/Temples/ Gurdwara/Waqf/Churches etc., or other placed of public religious worship. Therefore, the income of such body which is constituted Page 17 of 37 ITA Nos 1002 and 1003 of 2024 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam by the Central or State govt, to administer interalia Endowment Temples is exempt u/s 10(23BBA) and not the income

SRI VENAKTESWARA SWAMY DEVASTANAM,,JAMALAPURAM vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD1- (3), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1002 & 1003/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vs. Income Tax Officer Devasthanam (Exemption), Ward 1(3) Jamalapuram Hyderabad Pan:Aamts2301Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate E Hari Babu राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 19/02/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay. The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That During The Pendency Of The Appeal Before The Learned Cit (A), The Assessee Filed A Writ Petition Before The Hon'Ble High Court For Issuing Directions To The Learned Cit (A) & The Hon'Ble High Court Was Pleased To Give Directions To The Learned Cit (A)

trust or endowments including Math/Temples/ Gurdwara/Waqf/Churches etc., or other placed of public religious worship. Therefore, the income of such body which is constituted Page 17 of 37 ITA Nos 1002 and 1003 of 2024 Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devastanam by the Central or State govt, to administer interalia Endowment Temples is exempt u/s 10(23BBA) and not the income

CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

sections 11 and 12. These two provisions and few other provisions are competent enough to tackle firmly a defaulter of philanthropic application of income or funds of the trust. The other adverse side of cancellation is that on refusal of registration the entire receipts shall be subject to assessment without granting benefit of section 11 and section 12 to assess

CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

sections 11 and 12. These two provisions and few other provisions are competent enough to tackle firmly a defaulter of philanthropic application of income or funds of the trust. The other adverse side of cancellation is that on refusal of registration the entire receipts shall be subject to assessment without granting benefit of section 11 and section 12 to assess

K M R EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

24. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing the order of cancellation under Section 12AB (4) based purely on assumptions and incorrect facts without properly appreciating that there was no violation of the provisions under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 25. The Ld. PCIT (Central) has proceeded

K M R EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

24. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing the order of cancellation under Section 12AB (4) based purely on assumptions and incorrect facts without properly appreciating that there was no violation of the provisions under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 25. The Ld. PCIT (Central) has proceeded

MARUTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

24. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing the order of cancellation under Section 12AB (4) based purely on assumptions and incorrect facts without properly appreciating that there was no violation of the provisions under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 25. The Ld. PCIT (Central) has proceeded

MARRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

24. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing the order of cancellation under Section 12AB (4) based purely on assumptions and incorrect facts without properly appreciating that there was no violation of the provisions under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 25. The Ld. PCIT (Central) has proceeded

MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

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

24. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing the order of cancellation under Section 12AB (4) based purely on assumptions and incorrect facts without properly appreciating that there was no violation of the provisions under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 25. The Ld. PCIT (Central) has proceeded

MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

24. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT (Central) erred in passing the order of cancellation under Section 12AB (4) based purely on assumptions and incorrect facts without properly appreciating that there was no violation of the provisions under Sections 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act. 25. The Ld. PCIT (Central) has proceeded