RAIN CEMENTS LIMITED, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Rain Cements Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Rain Income Tax, Circle 3 (1) Cii Carbon (India) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcr8858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Prathishta Singh & Advocate Deepak Chopra Revenue By: Dr.Rajendra Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 24.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(5) R.W.S. 260 Of The I.T. Act For The A.Y 2008-09. 2. This Appeal Was Earlier Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 18.10.2019. Subsequently Vide Ma No.15/Hyd/2020, Dated 23.3.2021, The Tribunal Recalled The Entire Order For Fresh Adjudication. Therefore, This Is A Recalled Matter.

charitable trust had expired on 22-9-1992 was not noticed by the Income Tax Officer. This is not a case of information on a question of law. The dispute as to whether reopening is permissible after audit party expresses an opinion on a question of law is now being considered by a larger Bench of this Court. There

MADHUSUDHAN JAJU,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

In the result, the C.O. of the Revenue is allowed for statistical\npurposes

254 days, for\nwhich they have filed one combined condonation petition in the form\nof Affidavit.\nLearned Department Representative (“Ld. DR\")\nsubmitted that, during the relevant period of delay of the C.O., there\nwas transfer of the Ld. AO, nomination of the Ld. AO for election\nduty and there were time barring assessment, penalty cases, reopening\nof assessment

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

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

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

Charitable Trust [2011] 13 taxmann.com 50 (Hyderabad), wherein it was held that "it was not open to Tribunal to entertain second application which was filed on same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on alleged premise that there was an error apparent in order of Tribunal". Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 4. Reliance is also placed

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

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

Charitable Trust [2011] 13 taxmann.com 50 (Hyderabad), wherein it was held that "it was not open to Tribunal to entertain second application which was filed on same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on alleged premise that there was an error apparent in order of Tribunal". Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 4. Reliance is also placed

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

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

Charitable Trust [2011] 13 taxmann.com 50 (Hyderabad), wherein it was held that "it was not open to Tribunal to entertain second application which was filed on same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on alleged premise that there was an error apparent in order of Tribunal". Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad. 4. Reliance is also placed

ASST. DIRECTOR OF IT (EXEMP)-II,, HYDERABAD vs. ACTION FOR WELFARE AND AWAKENING IN RURAL ENVIRONMENT (AWARE), HYDERABAD

In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Shantivanam, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaata2338R (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.138/Hyd/2012 (In आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.709/Hyd/2012) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1995-96) Asst. Director Of Income Tax Vs. Action For Welfare & (Exemptions)-Ii, Awakening In Rural Hyderabad. Environment (Aware), Pragati Bhavan, D.No.5-9- 24/78, Lake Hill Road, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad- 500463. Pan: Aaata2338R (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant In Appeal) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "वारा/Revenue By:: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2026 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement: 13/02/2026

254 of the Act on 26.03.2004, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,76,58,674/-, mainly by invoking section 11(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the entire

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

WISDOM WINGS CHARITABLE TRUST,ATMAKUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes as indicated herein above

Charitable Trust, 17-107/13/4/1, Rahamath Nagar,\nAtmakur, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh-518422.\n2. CIT (Exemption), Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer\nBagh, Hyderabad-500004.\n3. Pr. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad.\n4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad.\n5. GUARD FILE.\n\nTRUE COPY\n\nASSISTANT REGISTRAR\nITAT, HYDERABAD", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income

WISDOM WINGS CHARITABLE TRUST,ATMAKUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes as indicated herein above

Charitable Trust, 17-107/13/4/1, Rahamath Nagar,\nAtmakur, Nandyal District, Andhra Pradesh-518422.\n2. CIT (Exemption), Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite LB Stadium, Basheer\nBagh, Hyderabad-500004.\n3. Pr. CIT (Exemption), Hyderabad.\n4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad.\n5. GUARD FILE.\nTRUE COPY\nASSISTANT REGISTRAR\nITAT, HYDERABAD", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee filed an application for registration under Section 12AB of the Income

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

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