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

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 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

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 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

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

6 are general in nature and hence there is no\nneed of separate adjudication. Ground No.2 is raised against the\naddition amounting to Rs.74,92,000 made u/s 14A r.w.rule 8D. During\nassessment proceedings assessee was asked to furnish monthly\naver ages of the opening and closing balances of the value of\ninvestment. Details of investments are as follows

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

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

6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised three grounds in its appeal and they are extracted herein below for reference: 1. “The order of the Ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising from an order passed by the CPC, Bengaluru U/s. 143(1) of the Income

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

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

PARIGE VENKAT RAM 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.

6 of the agreement further mentions specifications which are part of the original agreement dated 05.08.2016 and which have not been mentioned in the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2018. This agreement also shows that the money has been received and there is no outstanding or the part of the buyer, thus the unaccounted cash was used for this purpose