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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

condone delay in filing Form 10B. 11. Without prejudice to other grounds, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire amount of Rs 20,97,19,672/-has been duly expended towards the objects of the trust on Revenue account which is clearly evident from the Return of Income filed. 12.1. Without prejudice to other grounds

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.972 & 973/Hyd/2024

10B/10BB and delay in filing of these Forms. This Tribunal in the case of other Group Educational Institutions viz., Church Educational Society, Hyderabad & Others (supra) vide Order dated 14.11.2024 has considered an identical issue in Paras-9 to 14 as under: "9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders

GLOBAL UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 240/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Global University Foundation Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (Exemption) Ward-1 Pan:Aaicg0020F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Suvibha Nolka राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Sankar Pandi, P, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 26/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14/07/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. There Is A Delay Of 506 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Which Is Supported By An Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Foundation. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Served With The Impugned Order Dated 14/07/2023 Passed By The Learned Cit (A) & Therefore, Due To The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, The Assessee

10B and whether they did give letter dated 18.12.2023 seeking for condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the act in submitting

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condonation of delay in filing Form-10B was rejected for the assessment year 2022-2023. The other appeal i.e., ITA.No. 1307/Hyd/2025 by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 31.07.2025 of the Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad arising from the Order dated 28.03.2023 of CPC, Bengaluru, passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2022-2023. 2. First

SEVA BHARATHI,HYDERABAD vs. CIT., EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

condonation of delay in filing Form-10B was rejected for the assessment year 2022-2023. The other appeal i.e., ITA.No. 1307/Hyd/2025 by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 31.07.2025 of the Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad arising from the Order dated 28.03.2023 of CPC, Bengaluru, passed u/sec.143(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2022-2023. 2. First

KRANTHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BHADRACHALLAM vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

10B was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(E), Ld. CIT(A) held that, 4 Kranthi Educational Society he had no jurisdiction to condone such delay and therefore, upheld the disallowance of Rs.10,72,66,472/- and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. The learned

ANJUMAN E KHADIMUL MUSLIMEEN REFAH-E AAM,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT-EXEMPTION, CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

condoned the delay for filing of Form 10B vide his order dated 06/08/2024 . Therefore, on this issue there should not be any denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. With regards to delay in filing of ROI, the Ld. AR submitted that section

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATI RAJ, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and cross- objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing Form 10B as per Instruction No.F.No.267/482/77-IT(part) dated 09.02.1978. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4 ITA Nos.1210 and 1211/Hyd/2025 & C.O. Nos.27 and 28/Hyd/2025 National Institute of Rural Development & Pranchayati Raj 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, National Institute of Rural Development

SRI RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

10B and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b). The relevant

SRI RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.491 & 492/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21) Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Vs. Asstt. Director Of Income Temple, Keesara Gutta Tax, Hyderabad Exemption Ward-1(4) Pan:Aaeas2164C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Srikanth, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/01/2024

10B and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone such delay as per section 119(2)(b). The relevant

ANJUMAN E KHADIMUL MUSLIMEEN REFAH-E-AAM,KACHIGUDA vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

delay in filing form 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act was condoned by the learned CIT(E) by order

ACIT., (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. THE YACHT CLUB OF HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

condoning the delay in filing Form 10B under section 119(2)(b) of the Act, and it forms part of record

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 11 of the Act for the current year. It was further submitted that although the return of income and audit report in Form ITA No.399/Hyd/2023 5 10B were filed belatedly on 31.03.2019, the delay should be condoned

SREE RAYALASEEMA GALAXY PROJECTS PVT LTD., KURNOOL,KURNOOL vs. ITO, WARD-1, KURNOOL, KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

condoning delay as the assessee filed to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever as pronounced by the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of T.Kishan, Secunderabad Vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyd [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 383 (Hyd). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL vs. SREE RAYALASEEMA GALAXY PROJECTS PVT LTD , KURNOOL

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Flat No.40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Sree Rayalaseema Galaxy Income Tax, Circle – 1, Projects Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. 40-304, Bhagyanagagar, Kurnool – 518004. Pan : Aaecs1589H (Cross Applicant) (Respondent/Assessee) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2024

condoning delay as the assessee filed to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever as pronounced by the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of T.Kishan, Secunderabad Vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyd [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 383 (Hyd). 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts

BHAGINI MANDAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

section 1 1 , being amount applied for charitable purpose and amount set apart for accumulation, and income claimed to be exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) have not been disclosed to the appellant at appeal stage. 2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting opportunity to the appellant to file and obtain the condonation for delaying in filing Form 10B

BHAGINI MANDAL,HYDEABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar

section 1 1 , being amount applied for charitable purpose and amount set apart for accumulation, and income claimed to be exempt u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) have not been disclosed to the appellant at appeal stage. 2. The CIT(Appeals) erred in not granting opportunity to the appellant to file and obtain the condonation for delaying in filing Form 10B

NAVAYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

10B or section 10BA or under any provision of the said Chapter - VI A under the heading "C.-Deduction in respect of certain incomes", no deduction would be allowed to him under the said provision. In plain terms, this sub-section (5) of section 80A of the Act imposes an additional condition for claim of deduction in relation to income