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

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

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

Charitable Trust, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80G of the Act, because, the above trust is not registered under Section 80G for AY 2019-20, which is evident from the relevant order for approval under Section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 01.07.2020. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80G is also

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

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

250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 raising the following submissions : “The appellant, herein, submits that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad, Bench 'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.1498/Hyd/2011 has dismissed the appellant's appeal for the Asst. year 2006-07 vide their common order dated 28-12- 2012 (Page Nos. 32 & 33) in ITA Nos. 1494 to 1498/Hyd/2011

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

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

250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 raising the following submissions : “The appellant, herein, submits that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad, Bench 'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.1498/Hyd/2011 has dismissed the appellant's appeal for the Asst. year 2006-07 vide their common order dated 28-12- 2012 (Page Nos. 32 & 33) in ITA Nos. 1494 to 1498/Hyd/2011

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

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

250 with reference to section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 raising the following submissions : “The appellant, herein, submits that the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad, Bench 'A', Hyderabad in ITA No.1498/Hyd/2011 has dismissed the appellant's appeal for the Asst. year 2006-07 vide their common order dated 28-12- 2012 (Page Nos. 32 & 33) in ITA Nos. 1494 to 1498/Hyd/2011

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

Charitable Trust 6,00,000 Maha Bodhi Society 22,50,000 Total Donations 3,77,95,288 Deduction eligible U/s 80G 1,88,97,644 The assessing officer held that such a deduction is not allowable as CSR expenditure by the assessee forms a part of the mandatory requirement of the Companies Act, 2013 and consequently not eligible for deduction

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

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

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

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

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

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

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

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

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

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

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

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

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

Charitable Trust\n6,00,000\nMaha Bodhi Society\n22,50,000\nTotal Donations\n3,77,95,288\nDeduction eligible U/s 80G\n1,88,97,644\nThe assessing officer held that such a deduction is not allowable as\nCSR expenditure by the assessee forms a part of the mandatory\nrequirement of the Companies Act, 2013 and consequently not eligible\nfor deduction

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

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

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:

Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and passing the order u/s 250 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of entire expenditure claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.8,76,751/, which

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

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

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:

Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and passing the order u/s 250 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of entire expenditure claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.8,76,751/, which

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MATAM,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD , TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.539/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pothuluri The Income Tax Officer, Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Vs. Exemption Ward, Matam, Kadapa. Tirupati. 8/124-1, Kandimallayapalli, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aagts2599Q. अपीलधर्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

250 of the Act, no response was made by the appellant. Considering the facts of the case, it is clear that the reason for denying the exemption claimed u/s. 11 & 12 by the AO was non filing of audit report in Form 10. However, the appellant has not explained /furnished any details regarding filing of Form 10. As per Rule

DIVYAVANI TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2019-20 Divyavani Trust, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(2), Pan: Aadtd 2316 F Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram For Ca K.C. Devdas Revenue By Sri Subbaraju Penmetaa, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2022 Order

section 11(1)(a) of the Act. 4. Any other ground(s) that may be argued at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC), Delhi had confirmed the order of the Ld. AO passed U/s. 143(1) of the Act who had denied the benefit U/s.11

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

250 ITR 193 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court held that upon perusal of the original order of assessment and the order of reassessment under section 147, it was clear that the later makes a fresh assessment of the entire income of the respondent/ assessee and hence, the Hon'ble High Court was right in proceeding on the basis that

VAGDEVI REDDY TANDUR,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

250 of the Act dated 30.05.2022 is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT ( A) erred in dismissing the appeal 3. The Ld.CIT ( A) ought to have deleted the fees levied u/s 234E of the Act for Rs.39,200/- 4. The Ld.CIT ( A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and in not deciding