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

92,567/-. ITA No.1633/Hyd/2014 Page 4 5.1 Later on, in accordance with direction of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT”) u/s.263 of the Act, Ld. AO passed the order u/s. 143 r.w.s. 263 on 30/12/2011 determining the total income at Rs.5,39,24,455/-, withdrawing deduction of Rs.13,49,408/- u/s.80IA of the Act and making additions

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIRMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA No

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer, Committee, Bodhan. Ward-2, Pan: Aaala 0787 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent)

92,638/- on development works like spill over, new works, link roads and purchase of machinery which are allowable as a deduction u/s 36(1)(xii) of the IT. Act. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have seen that the appellant incurred an expenditure of Rs.78,99,000/- under the special scheme Rythu Bandu Pathakam which

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

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.

charitable purposes as mandated by section 11 of the I.T. Act. The learned CIT (A) deleted the addition and Revenue is not in appeal before us, therefore, we are not concerned with the same. However, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,00,06,345/- as unexplained investment which has been sustained by the learned CIT (A) which

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

92,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 3.1 According to the newly inserted explanation to section 14A, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the act, the provisions of section 14A shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income not forming part of the total income

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

92,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 3.1 According to the newly inserted explanation to section 14A, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the act, the provisions of section 14A shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income not forming part of the total income

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

92,56,800/. ITA No.29/Hyd/2024 4 7. The assessee raised as many as 7 grounds in this appeal and also has raised one additional ground before us. 8. Ground No.1 of the assessee relates to the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee for Rs.1,77,53,859/-. The brief facts with regard to this