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

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

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

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

OPTUM GLOBAL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

POWER MECH PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

DELOITTE & TOUCHE ASSURANCE & ENTERPRISE RISK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

DELOITTEE TAX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

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

charitable activity. Admittedly, this has reached finality for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2011-12, wherein, the Co- 34 ITA.No.1128/Hyd./2024 ordinate Bench of this Tribunal have held the issue in favour of the assessee. The second issue is in regard to donation to Aids Awareness Trust of Orissa and the questioned the existence of the trust

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

charitable\ntrust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act.\n23.\nAs discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the\nassessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to\nonly CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by\nan assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and\nClean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

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

charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year such income so accumulated to set apart would not be included in the total income of the previous year provided the assessee filed an application before the Assessing Officer for being set apart for investment in future. (b) It clearly indicates that the appellant's income should have been exempted

DAYSPRING ENTERPRISES OF INDIA,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our observations given hereinabove

trust as per ITR filed for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17 and corrected calculation for the A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17. The assessee further submitted that, by an inadvertent error, the accumulation of income @ 15% u/s 11(1)(a) has been taken at Rs.78,32,246/- instead of Rs.2,15,04,978/-, and because of this, the assessee