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

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

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)

12A was granted w.e.f 01/4/2007 since the appeals against the assessments completed u/s 143(3) were pending as on 01/04/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessees were exempt from tax u/s 10(20) of the Act in the status of ‘Local Authority’ till the A.Y. 2002- 03. By virtue of insertion of the explanation below section

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE, HYDERABAD vs. HYDERABAD METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD

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

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

12A vide CIT(E)/12A/ITAT/2015-16 dt.26.12.2016. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the return of income was revised on 31.03.2019. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt.23.09.2019 was issued and served on the assessee, requiring

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

12A vide CIT(E)/12A/ITAT/2015-16 dt.26.12.2016. Assessee filed its return of income electronically on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the return of income was revised on 31.03.2019. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dt.23.09.2019 was issued and served on the assessee, requiring

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

TELANGANA WORKING JOURNALISTS WELFARE FUND,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,(EXEMPTIONS),WARD-3, HYDERABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2020-21 Telangana Working Vs. Ito(Exemptions), Ward-3 Journalists Welfare Fund Aaykar Bhawan 5-9-166, Chappel Road L.B.Stadium Road Nampally Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad Telangana-500 001

section 12A for claiming the said exemption are not met. viz. the return along with audit report in Form 10B has been filed beyond the due date allowed u/s 139 of the Act. As the deduction u/s 11 has been denied all voluntary contribution whether corpus or other than corpus donation become taxable and therefore the action of ADIT

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