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

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

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

Bench: Us (As Uploaded):

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee society that claims to be a charitable and religious trust, had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, declaring Nil income (after raising a claim of exemption u/s 11 of Rs. 1,76,44,761/-). The AO/CPC, Bengaluru for want of details of registration under Section 12A/12AA or approval under Section

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:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

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:

disallowed on a technical reason of delay in filing of the Audit Report in Form No. 10BB, which is due to reasonable cause and the same is beyond the control of the appellant. 9. The assessee may add, alter or modify or substitute any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time

SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Disallowance of CSR expenses of Rs. 1,42,97,133/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,81,16,931/-. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved, the assessee raised certain objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also going through the material available on record, dismissed the objections raised by the assessee. Thereafter

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

SRIMAD VIRAT POTHULURI VEERABRAHMENDRA SWAMULAVARI MATAM,KADAPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD , TIRUPATI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.539/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pothuluri The Income Tax Officer, Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Vs. Exemption Ward, Matam, Kadapa. Tirupati. 8/124-1, Kandimallayapalli, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aagts2599Q. अपीलधर्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

12A of the Act. The case has been selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 06.07.2017 which was duly served. The assessee trust has furnished the information as called for and also produced the manually maintained books of accounts and vouchers for verification. 3.1. During the course of assessment

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

12A(1)(b) of the Act read with proviso of Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Hence the assessee filed this appeal contending that the requirement of filing Form 10/10B is merely directory in nature and failure to furnish the same before the due date prescribed in 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 not filed Form 10A as per amended provisions of section 11 of the Act, and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer rightly disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under the old exemption. Page 2

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 therefore confirming the assessment of the TRUST on an Income of Rs. 82,83,576/-. ITA No.616/Hyd/2023 Page 2 3. The learned JCIT failed to note that the decision of the Supreme Court in CC vs. Dilip Kumar & Company [2018] 95 Taxmann.com 327 cited in the order passed u/s. 250 were inapplicable to the provisions relating

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).

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee, Kranthi Educational Society, a charitable institution registered under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short “the Act”) had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 28.03.2023 under Section 139(8A), declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income

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

HYDERABAD SCIENCE SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1128/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Hyderabad Science Society, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 028. Exemption Circle-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaath3789F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश/Order

2. The Ld. CIT(E) has erred in cancelling the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act without considering the facts of the case which is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) erroneously taken up for re-determining the issue of registration u/s 12AA, giving a bye-pass to the superior judicial authority

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). Finally, the Ld. AO concluded the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30.12.2019 disallowing the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s.11 of the Act and treated the gross receipts of Rs.9,03,81,292/- as the total income of the assessee