SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

charitable trusts/institutions. Admittedly, in the present case when the registration was granted on March 5, 2010, with effect from April 1, 2008, the assessment proceedings for 2007-08 were pending before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as an association of persons and is required to be treated as registered trust under section 12A of the Income

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

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

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

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

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

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

M/S. SREE MANIPRAKASH CHARITABLE WELFARE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.669/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2019-20) M/S Sree Maniprakash Charitable Vs. Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemptions) D.No.19-53/1 Visakhapatnam Near Railway Flyover Bridge Pendurthy, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaots8801M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri T.S.N.Murthy, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S.Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) [Cit(E)], Hyderabad In F.No.Cit(E), Hyd/85(03)/80G/2018-19 Dated 30.09.2019 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019-20. 2

c) Thirdly, the Ld.CIT(E) observed that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was fixed as annual rent for the said land and the assessee failed to furnish comparable rates of rents of the lands in the area to ascertain the violation of section 13(1) the act, thus, viewed that the assessee has failed to discharge the primary onus

GMR VARALAKSHMI FOUNDATION,RAJAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, , HYDERABAD AT VIZAG

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

1)(c) of the Act, where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer has been subject matter of any appeal, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub- section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

charitable Trust v. ITO (2017) 249 Taxman 0372 (Madras). c) Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 0309. d) Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DDIT (Exemptions) v. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board [(2014) 362 ITR 0235 (Delhi

ST. MARYS ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL SOCIETY,NARASARAOPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION WARD), GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.484 & 485/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) St. Marys English Medium School Society V. Ito (Exemption) Income Tax Office Main Road, Ravipadu Village Lakshmipuram Main Road Narasaraopet Mandal Guntur – 522006 Narasaraopet – 522604, Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aakts3349C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

charitable Trust v. ITO (2017) 249 Taxman 0372 (Madras). c) Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 0309. d) Order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DDIT (Exemptions) v. Petroleum Sports Promotion Board [(2014) 362 ITR 0235 (Delhi

ANDHARA UNIVERSITY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 70 & 71/Viz/2025 Andhra University Alumni Association V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward) 1St Floor, Science & Technology Building Income Tax Office Andhra University Infinity Tower, Shankarmatham Road Visakhapatnam – 530003 Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaeaa7037Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

13. The only grievance emanating from the above grounds is with respect to the rejection of Registration under section 80G of the Act by the Ld.CIT(E). 14. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee while filing form 10A has inadvertently quoted wrong clause. However, Centralised Processing Centre has issued the provisional registration quoting

ANDHARA UNIVERSITY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME ATX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos. 70 & 71/Viz/2025 Andhra University Alumni Association V. Income Tax Officer (Exemption Ward) 1St Floor, Science & Technology Building Income Tax Office Andhra University Infinity Tower, Shankarmatham Road Visakhapatnam – 530003 Santhipuram, Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaeaa7037Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

13. The only grievance emanating from the above grounds is with respect to the rejection of Registration under section 80G of the Act by the Ld.CIT(E). 14. On this issue, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter “Ld.AR”] submitted that the assessee while filing form 10A has inadvertently quoted wrong clause. However, Centralised Processing Centre has issued the provisional registration quoting