KAKINADA INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

Charitable Trust cited supra, there was no hard and fast\nrule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and courts\nshould adopt a pragmatic approach and the courts should exercise\ntheir discretion on the facts of the each case keeping in mind that in\nconstruing, the expression \"sufficient cause" the principle of advancing\nsubstantial justice

SRISAILA KSHETRA YOGI VEMA REDDY NITHYANNADANA SATRAM,KURNOOL vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Srisaila Kshetra Yogi Vema Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Reddy Nityannadana Satram, Tirupati. Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aadts7734G. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gbs Maitreya Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav. Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023

Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under:"In exercising discretion under section

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

In the result, three appeals i

charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case of the assessment as AOP after denial of benefit\nu/secs.11 and 12 the income of the assessee is required to\nbe assessed on commercial manner u/sec.56 of the Act and\ntherefore, the expenditure allowable as per the provisions of\nsec.57 of the act are required to be considered against the\ngross receipts. Following

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

charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case of the assessment as AOP after denial of benefit\nu/secs.11 and 12 the income of the assessee is required to\nbe assessed on commercial manner u/sec.56 of the Act and\ntherefore, the expenditure allowable as per the provisions of\nsec.57 of the act are required to be considered against the\ngross receipts. Following

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

charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case of the assessment as AOP after denial of benefit\nu/secs.11 and 12 the income of the assessee is required to\nbe assessed on commercial manner u/sec.56 of the Act and\ntherefore, the expenditure allowable as per the provisions of\nsec.57 of the act are required to be considered against the\ngross receipts. Following

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

charitable purpose. In other words,\nin case of the assessment as AOP after denial of benefit\nu/secs.11 and 12 the income of the assessee is required to\nbe assessed on commercial manner u/sec.56 of the Act and\ntherefore, the expenditure allowable as per the provisions of\nsec.57 of the act are required to be considered against the\ngross receipts. Following

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section 10(23C) or other provisions of the Act.” 15. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the clarification issued vide order dt.03.11.2022 in Paras 4 and 5 has held as under : “4. A plain reading of the conclusions recorded in Para 253(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) would disclose that this court

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

Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT reported in 280 ITR 357 has held that “3. The Supreme Court in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798held as under: "In exercising discretion under section