HYDERABAD AREA ROUND TABLE NO 134 CHARITABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.62 & 68/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: N.A) Hyderabad Area Round Vs. Commissioner Of Income Table No 134 Charitable Tax ( Exemption ) Trust, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabth5683D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Sridhar Jhawar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order

section 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 respectively. 2. In the appeal against the rejection of application u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 6 ITA Nos 62 and 68 of 2025 Hyd Area Round Table No 134 Charitable Trust

HYDERABAD AREA ROUND TABLE NO 134 CHARTIABLE TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.62 & 68/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: N.A) Hyderabad Area Round Vs. Commissioner Of Income Table No 134 Charitable Tax ( Exemption ) Trust, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabth5683D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.A. Sridhar Jhawar राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/04/2025 आदेश/Order

section 12AB of the I.T. Act, 1961 respectively. 2. In the appeal against the rejection of application u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 6 ITA Nos 62 and 68 of 2025 Hyd Area Round Table No 134 Charitable Trust

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

Charitable Trust\n12-10-2017\n6,00,000\n8 Sri Ramakrishna Seva Samithi\n06-03-2018\n10,00,000\nSub Total\n2,48,50,000\n9 Sahrudaya Health, Medical & Educational Trust\n30-04-2017\n7,00,000\n31-05-2017\n8,00,000\nSub Total

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

In the result, the solitary ground raised by the Revenue in the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Rishi Educational A.C.I.T. Society, Hyderabad Central Circle 2(4) Pan:Aaaar1952M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Esthen N Hangal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21/04/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Aop & Registered U/S 12A Of The I.T. Act Vide Proceedings Of The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Hyderabad In F.No.Hqrs/I/15/12A/Dit(E) Dated 27.02.2003. The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The A.Y 2017-18 On 06.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.Nil. M/S. Ravi Rishi Educational Society Is Run By Close Family Members Mr.N.Rajababu, Mr.Ramesh Babu, Mrs. N. Sulochana, Mrs. N. Yashoda, Mrs. N.

68 of the Act. In fact, he has certified that the trust has complied with the relevant provisions of sec. 10(23C)(v) of the Act. The provisions of section 10(23C)(v) of the Act are to be followed for deciding the issue under appeal and hence the same are reproduced below: "10. In computing the total income

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVATHANAM,SECUNDERBAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

UJJAINI MAHAKALI DEVASTHANAM,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act No. 30 of 14 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 1987). Consequently, it is exempt from the requirement to separately register under Sections 10, 12A, and 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Appellate Authority erred by not appreciating that the source of the cash deposits in question originated

BHARGAVI SAJJA,TELANGANA vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 12AB of the Act. We have gone through Clause 3 of the trust deed placed at Page No. 3 of the paper book and found that the trust’s charitable objectives include providing educational and medical aid to the underprivileged. We have also perused the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E), including (i) submission

FEHMICARE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 12AB of the Act. We have gone through Clause 3 of the trust deed placed at Page No. 3 of the paper book and found that the trust’s charitable objectives include providing educational and medical aid to the underprivileged. We have also perused the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E), including (i) submission

FEHMICARE FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

section 12AB of the Act. We have gone through Clause 3 of the trust deed placed at Page No. 3 of the paper book and found that the trust’s charitable objectives include providing educational and medical aid to the underprivileged. We have also perused the documentary evidences filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(E), including (i) submission

UNNATHI LEISURE VENTURES PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.582/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Unnathi Leisure Ventures Vs. Dy. Cit (P) Ltd Hyderabad Circle 8(1) Pan: Aabcu7058C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/08/2024 आदेश/Order

68,511/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation on building for Rs.52,26,061/-. The Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to file necessary details including ownership of asset on which depreciation was claimed. In response, the assessee submitted that it has taken

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

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

68,697/-) contending that no evidence in support of these\nexpenses were produced by the assessee. As there was difference in\nthe value of sale consideration shown by the assessee and the value as\nper SDV, at the request of the assessee, the Ld. AO referred the issue\nto the Learned Departmental Valuation Officer (“Ld. DVO\") for\nvaluation

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

section 92E of the Act also brings out this distinction (see page 11 of the Factual Paperbook) 6.The Ld. DR in the course of hearing had relied upon observations of the DRP for AY 2013-14 to say that the assessee had received the FCD proceeds in foreign currency. The Appellant submits that this is factually incorrect. A bare perusal

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

section 92E of the Act also brings out this distinction (see page 11 of the Factual Paperbook) 6.The Ld. DR in the course of hearing had relied upon observations of the DRP for AY 2013-14 to say that the assessee had received the FCD proceeds in foreign currency. The Appellant submits that this is factually incorrect. A bare perusal

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

trust / authority in spending the amount(s) is not in accordance with its objects. 4) CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the receipt of Rs.545,15,27,213/- under layout regulation scheme is a part and partial of the assessee authority besides the fact that the assessee is in receipt of the same. 5) CIT(A) ought