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)

Charitable Trust has been approved u/s 80G, donation made to the said entity would be eligible for deduction. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciate that the AO erred in law and on facts in making the disallowance of the claim for Rs. 45,250 being the contribution to PF, on the alleged ground that there has been

SRI EDUPAYALA VANA DURGA BHAVANI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SANGAREDDY

Bench: Us:

charitable purposes registered as such under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is exempt under Section 10(23BBA) of the Act, but the income of such public or religious trusts or endowments, viz. maths, temples, gurdwaras, wakfs, churches, synagogues, agiaries or other places of public or religious worship cannot be brought within the meaning of the exemption contemplated in the said

DEVGEM SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

64 ITR 611 which was a case of a donor to the trust, based on amendment to the object of the Trust, had held that it is not charitable as one of the amended object vas not charitable. In the subsequent. proceeding which arose in the case of the Trust it was claimed before the Tribunal that the amendment

DEVGEN SEEDS AND CROP TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, SECUNDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-17(1) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

64 ITR 611 which was a case of a donor to the trust, based on amendment to the object of the Trust, had held that it is not charitable as one of the amended object vas not charitable. In the subsequent. proceeding which arose in the case of the Trust it was claimed before the Tribunal that the amendment

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

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1083/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Industries आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1084/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hydeabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) Vs. Penna Cement Industries Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aabcp2290D (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 11/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/01/2026 2

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

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

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

64,96,444 Rs.4,16,30,110 Rs.3,24,01,207 collected, to the tune of ' which is not discussed in the assessment order 2 Common Ground by Dept Layout Regularization Scheme receipts of are not Rs.2,62,71,273/- Rs.4,13,85,359/- Rs.4,61,56,306/- Rs.7,11,46,522/- Rs.12,18,19,361/- completely offered as receipts

TELANGANA WORKING JOURNALISTS WELFARE FUND,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,(EXEMPTIONS),WARD-3, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2020-21 Telangana Working Vs. Ito(Exemptions), Ward-3 Journalists Welfare Fund Aaykar Bhawan 5-9-166, Chappel Road L.B.Stadium Road Nampally Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad Telangana-500 001

charitable or religious trust constitute income. The voluntary contributions to the corpus become exempt only by virtue of operation of section 11 (1 ) (d) which is again reproduced below: 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SEW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang, Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

64 SOT 105 (Pune)  Naresh T. Wadhwani Vs. DCIT [2015] 37 ITR(T) 179 (Pune - Trib.)  Shrikant Mohta Vs. CIT [20191 414 ITR 270 (Calcutta)  PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. [20201 422 ITR 71 (Bombay)]  CIT v. B. G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 306 (Bombay)  Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly known as Ruchi soya Industries