LEADER PEOPLE SERVICE CHARITABLE TRUST,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.471/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: Na) Leader People Service Vs. The Income Tax Officer Charitable Trust, (Exemption Ward), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aabtl4868N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit- Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 29/10/2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R "ित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./Per Ravish Sood, J.M. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Trust Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(Exemptions)”], Hyderabad, Dated 17.06.2025 Rejecting Its Application Filed In “Form No. 10Ab” For Regular Registration Under Section 80G(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”). The Assessee

25. 3. Therefore, the assessee trust filed an application for regular registration under Section 80G of the Act in “Form No. 10AB” on 15.10.2024. During the course of proceedings, the assessee trust in response to notices issued by the CIT(Exemptions), dated 26.03.2025 and 19.05.2025, vide its 3 Leader People Service Charitable Trust vs. ITO (Exemption Ward) replies submitted

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , VIJAYAWADA vs. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST, , VIJAYAWADA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

10. Ground No.5 relates incurring expenditure to the extent of 85%. The total income of the assessee for the impugned assessment year is Rs. 16,66,37,767/-. The assessee is required to spend 85% of the amount which worked out to Rs.14,16,42,102/-. The total expenditure incurred by the assessee was Rs.13,25,14,186/- excluding depreciation

SWARAJ FOUNDATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10. Shri. GVN Hari, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short, “AR”) for the assessee trust at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(Exemption) most arbitrarily based on a clerical mistake that has its genesis in an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee trust while filing the online application in “Form No. 10A” for provisional

SWARAJ FOUNDATION,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

10. Shri. GVN Hari, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short, “AR”) for the assessee trust at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the CIT(Exemption) most arbitrarily based on a clerical mistake that has its genesis in an inadvertent error on the part of the assessee trust while filing the online application in “Form No. 10A” for provisional

SREERAM BHAGAWATHI AYYAPPA SEVA TRUST,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

In the result, the impugned order dated 13

Bench: rejection.”

charitable and religious nature. 4. The rejection order is mechanical and arbitrary, as it does not specify how the trust’s activities deviate from its stated objectives. 5. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to apply the principle of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for further clarification before rejection.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee trust was constituted

SREERAM BHAGAWATHI AYYAPPA SEVA TRUST,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

In the result, the impugned order dated 13

Bench: rejection.”

charitable and religious nature. 4. The rejection order is mechanical and arbitrary, as it does not specify how the trust’s activities deviate from its stated objectives. 5. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to apply the principle of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for further clarification before rejection.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee trust was constituted

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.A.Rahim, I.T.P सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

25,02,854 Income from India – Srilanka T20 match 2,50,08,563 Annual subscriptions received 10,000 Interest on IT refund 17,09,125 Rent received from stadium complex 20,07,770 Income from IPL matches 27,36,287 Total 45,13,91,540 10. It was further observed that the BCCI reimbursements & grants of Rs.37

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

10,87,17,017/- and the income admitted was only ` 9,71,29,543/- thus resulting in difference of ` 1,15,87,468/-. Such difference for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 is as follows: 2009-10 - ` 1,37,06,214/- ` 1,30,96,505/- 2010-11 - 2011-12 - ` 70,44,262/- M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

10,87,17,017/- and the income admitted was only ` 9,71,29,543/- thus resulting in difference of ` 1,15,87,468/-. Such difference for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 is as follows: 2009-10 - ` 1,37,06,214/- ` 1,30,96,505/- 2010-11 - 2011-12 - ` 70,44,262/- M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

10,87,17,017/- and the income admitted was only ` 9,71,29,543/- thus resulting in difference of ` 1,15,87,468/-. Such difference for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 is as follows: 2009-10 - ` 1,37,06,214/- ` 1,30,96,505/- 2010-11 - 2011-12 - ` 70,44,262/- M/s. Sri Prakash Educational Society, Tuni

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

charitable purpose as held by the Hon‟ble AP High Court in the case of CIT AP-1 Vs. Trustee of V.H.E.H. the Nizams Supplemental Trust [127 ITR 378]. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

charitable purpose as held by the Hon‟ble AP High Court in the case of CIT AP-1 Vs. Trustee of V.H.E.H. the Nizams Supplemental Trust [127 ITR 378]. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. We do not see any error or infirmity in the order passed

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam