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)

6 Zaheer Ahmed Syed 10,00,000/- to R.R. Charitable Trust. The assessee has claimed deduction towards donations paid to R.R. Charitable Trust under CSR expenditure / under provisions of Section 80G of the Income- tax Act, 1961. First of all, CSR provisions are not applicable to the assessee and the assessee cannot claim deduction towards any amount paid to charitable

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

Charitable Foundation Poona, that the amendment is prospective in nature. 3. Sec.11(6) introduced by Finance Act, 2014, AY 2015-16 reads as follows : Section 11(6) : " In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance

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

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

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 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

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

6 ITA Nos 2065 2066 and 2067 of 2018 AMC Kubeer. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the issue before me is exactly the same as in the case of AMC, Bodhan. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- “3. Upon hearing both

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

6 ITA Nos 2065 2066 and 2067 of 2018 AMC Kubeer. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that the issue before me is exactly the same as in the case of AMC, Bodhan. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, the relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- “3. Upon hearing both

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

250 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) and at paras 7.2 to 7.4 has held as under: “7.2 It is also relevant to reproduce the explanatory notes to the provisions of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 as given in CBDT Circular No.01/2015 dated 21.01.2015 in reference F. No.142/13/2014-TPL, which read as follows: "Para 8.2 Non-application of registration for the period prior to the year

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

250 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) and at paras 7.2 to 7.4 has held as under: “7.2 It is also relevant to reproduce the explanatory notes to the provisions of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 as given in CBDT Circular No.01/2015 dated 21.01.2015 in reference F. No.142/13/2014-TPL, which read as follows: "Para 8.2 Non-application of registration for the period prior to the year

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

250 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) and at paras 7.2 to 7.4 has held as under: “7.2 It is also relevant to reproduce the explanatory notes to the provisions of Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 as given in CBDT Circular No.01/2015 dated 21.01.2015 in reference F. No.142/13/2014-TPL, which read as follows: "Para 8.2 Non-application of registration for the period prior to the year

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

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)

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which should have been allowed by the Assessing officer. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234B of the IT. Act.” 3. Upon

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

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)

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which should have been allowed by the Assessing officer. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234B of the IT. Act.” 3. Upon

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

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

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)

6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which should have been allowed by the Assessing officer. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234B of the IT. Act.” 3. Upon