DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. DBS TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dbs Technology Income Tax, Services India Private Circle – 8(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.2/Hyd/2023 Assessment Year 2019-20 Dbs Technology Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Circle – 8(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcd5584N (Cross Objector / (Appellant/Revenue) Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. P. Lohia, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, Jm: The Appeal & Cross-Objection Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2019-20 Arise From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

12A, section 44AB [, section 44DA, section 50B], section 80-IA, section 80-IB, section 80-IC, section 80-ID, section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E, [section 115JB, 5[section 115JC] or section 115VW] [or to give a notice under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] [(3) The return

SRI MODH VISA GOWBHUJA SAJNA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

Bench: Us (As Uploaded):

disallowed the exemption u/s 11. Hence, the appellant's ground is dismissed. 6.3 The appellant has submitted further that it had filed an application U/s 12A in Form 10A dated 19.04.1991 before CIT, AP-2, Hyderabad which was duly acknowledged by the Commissioner on 01.05.1991. However the said application was neither rejected nor accepted and as the appellant trust didn

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

12A of the Act granted on 16.09.2019 for the asst. year under consideration in spite of specific proviso to section l2A to that effect. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are incorrect on facts and in law. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the benefit of registration under section

SAGARA KSHATRIYA WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1(4), HYD, HYDERABAD

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

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

12A of the Act and also filed audit in form No. 10B for the year under consideration within the due date. An intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was passed by CPC on 31/03/2023, by disallowing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(1), HYD, HYDERABAD vs. HES INFRA PVT LTD., HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowing the claim of 80IA as the assessee was not the owner of the infrastructural facilities laid / installed / created by it. In fact, the owner of the said infrastructural facilities were the Superintendent Engineer / Chief Engineer / Project Director of the concerned Government Department. He drew our attention to pages 3 to 5 of the assessment order and had also drawn

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

disallowed the exemption claimed and made addition of the same to the total income of the appellant as per the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii). Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. These grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed. In the result, appeal is dismissed..” 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order

ITW INDIA GRATUITY FUND,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15 Itw India Gratuity Fund, Vs. A.C.I.T. Exemption Gurgaon, Haryana Ward-1(1) Pan:Aaati5254L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surya Kiran Motamarri, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Aop Is An Approved Gratuity Fund Trust Recognized By The Commissioner Of Income Tax. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Form Itr- 7 By Mentioning That Its Income Is Exempt U/S. 10(23C) (Iv) & That It Erroneously Mentioned In The Tax Return That It Was Granted Registration Under Section 12A. The Books Of Accounts Were Audited As Per The Normal Accounting Practice. Even In The Itr 7 Filed By The Assessee, It Was Erroneously Mentioned That Page 1 Of 6

Section 12A. However, such audit report u/s. 12A in Form 10B was not obtained by the assessee. The return of income was processed by the CPC, Bangalore u/s. 143(1) denying the exemption and thereby taxing the entire receipts as income of the assessee for the reasons as erroneous mention of the assessee as entitled for registration u/s. 12A

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).

12A(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the CPC treated the gross receipts of Rs.10,72,66,472/- as taxable income and raised a demand of Rs.7,46,74,360/-. 3. Aggrieved with such intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Before

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

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

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). According to the assessee since the expenditure was not allowable under section 37 of the Act, the assessee suo moto disallowed

ABID ALI KHAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.457/Hyd/2024 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Abid Ali Khan Educational Dcit Trust Vs. Exemption Hyderabad Circle-1(1) [Pan : Aaata4256G] Hyderabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Mohd Shoeb, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/08/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 25/09/2024

disallowing exemption claimed by the Trust under section 11 of the Act. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but the Ld. CIT(A) by way of impugned order held that Form 10B was filed on 28.09.2017, the date on which the return of income was filed, which shows that the assessee filed both the tax audit report

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12A by Hon'ble ITAT, I am of the considered opinion that there is no case for denial of exemption u/s 11. As the Assessing Officer reported that the donations are voluntary and towards corpus funds, I hold that the addition of Rs.2,29,99,999/- (AY. 2005-06) and Rs.1,84,85,000/- (A Y 2006-07), have

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12A by Hon'ble ITAT, I am of the considered opinion that there is no case for denial of exemption u/s 11. As the Assessing Officer reported that the donations are voluntary and towards corpus funds, I hold that the addition of Rs.2,29,99,999/- (AY. 2005-06) and Rs.1,84,85,000/- (A Y 2006-07), have

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12A by Hon'ble ITAT, I am of the considered opinion that there is no case for denial of exemption u/s 11. As the Assessing Officer reported that the donations are voluntary and towards corpus funds, I hold that the addition of Rs.2,29,99,999/- (AY. 2005-06) and Rs.1,84,85,000/- (A Y 2006-07), have

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12A by Hon'ble ITAT, I am of the considered opinion that there is no case for denial of exemption u/s 11. As the Assessing Officer reported that the donations are voluntary and towards corpus funds, I hold that the addition of Rs.2,29,99,999/- (AY. 2005-06) and Rs.1,84,85,000/- (A Y 2006-07), have

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12A by Hon'ble ITAT, I am of the considered opinion that there is no case for denial of exemption u/s 11. As the Assessing Officer reported that the donations are voluntary and towards corpus funds, I hold that the addition of Rs.2,29,99,999/- (AY. 2005-06) and Rs.1,84,85,000/- (A Y 2006-07), have

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD vs. VIGNANA JYOTHI, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

12A by Hon'ble ITAT, I am of the considered opinion that there is no case for denial of exemption u/s 11. As the Assessing Officer reported that the donations are voluntary and towards corpus funds, I hold that the addition of Rs.2,29,99,999/- (AY. 2005-06) and Rs.1,84,85,000/- (A Y 2006-07), have