ACIT,CIRCLE-13(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S SURESH PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the ground of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

254 of the Act on 31/03/2014 determining the total income at Rs.5,39,24,455/-, disallowing deduction of Rs.13,49,408/- u/s. 80IA of the Act and making additions Rs.11,82,480/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act & Rs.2,25,00,000/- u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. ITA NO.1633/HYD/2014 : 6. The Revenue has raised as many

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that ITA Nos.1877 to 1881/Hyd/2019 it is set up for a charitable purpose

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section

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

2(15) having regard to the judgment of this Court in the Gujarat Maritime Board case (supra) Likewise, the denial of benefit under Section 10(46) after 01 04 2011 does not preclude a statutory corporation, board, or whatever such body may be called, from claiming that it is set up for a charitable purpose and seeking exemption under Section

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

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

254(2). Therefore, the assessee cannot seek a new issue or a new line of enquiry for adjudication. In light of the above, the MAs may kindly be dismissed.” 35. From the reading of the written submissions of the assessee dt.01.11.2016 and the reply filed by the Revenue, it is abundantly clear that assessee on its own choose to withdraw

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

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

254(2). Therefore, the assessee cannot seek a new issue or a new line of enquiry for adjudication. In light of the above, the MAs may kindly be dismissed.” 35. From the reading of the written submissions of the assessee dt.01.11.2016 and the reply filed by the Revenue, it is abundantly clear that assessee on its own choose to withdraw

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

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

254(2). Therefore, the assessee cannot seek a new issue or a new line of enquiry for adjudication. In light of the above, the MAs may kindly be dismissed.” 35. From the reading of the written submissions of the assessee dt.01.11.2016 and the reply filed by the Revenue, it is abundantly clear that assessee on its own choose to withdraw

HYDERABAD SCIENCE SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

2. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act without considering the facts of the case which is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) erroneously taken up for re-determining the issue of registration u/s 12AA, giving a bye-pass to the superior judicial authority

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