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

15%, therefore the entire income of the assessee is exempt u/sec. 11(1) of the Act. We have examined the entire facts and circumstances of the case and find that assessee is running the trust in accordance with the objects. The activities carried by the assessee in running the trust are charitable in nature, the expenditure incurred by the assessee

THE KRISHNA DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 160/Viz/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Krishna District Lorry Owners Associations V. Income Tax Officer –Exemption Ward 40-13-1/1, Near Benz Circle Rajahmundry Chandramoulipuram, Vijayawada – 520010 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatt4359H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

section 2(15) of the Act. Ld. AO therefore held that the assessee is carrying out activities in nature of business and professions under the guise of public charitable trust

APEX FOUNDATION,PANASAPADU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.653/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :Na) Apex Foundation, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Kakinada. Tax (Exemptions), Pan: Aagta 1866 Q Hyderabad. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri G.V.N. Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

Trust which was created in order to eradicate extreme hunger and poverty, infrastructure development, ensuring environmental sustainability, drinking water facility, healthcare, community development, skill development etc., in India and abroad which certainly falls under charitable activity under section 2 clause (15

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)

charitable activities including providing scholarships, support for education and sports, assistance to the poor and underprivileged, and support for homes for the aged. The assessee trust was granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act by the CIT- 2, Visakhapatnam vide his order dated 09.11.2005. 4. That pursuant to the changes introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, the assessee trust

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)

charitable activities including providing scholarships, support for education and sports, assistance to the poor and underprivileged, and support for homes for the aged. The assessee trust was granted registration under Section 12AA of the Act by the CIT- 2, Visakhapatnam vide his order dated 09.11.2005. 4. That pursuant to the changes introduced by the Finance Act, 2020, the assessee trust

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.” 11. Succinctly stated, the assessee trust was granted provisional registration

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.” 11. Succinctly stated, the assessee trust was granted provisional registration

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

charitable nature within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, and as we have further held that there is no violation, whatsoever of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the other grounds of the assessee need not be gone into, as it would be of academic interest only." The Revenue

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

charitable nature within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, and as we have further held that there is no violation, whatsoever of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the other grounds of the assessee need not be gone into, as it would be of academic interest only." The Revenue

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

charitable nature within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act, and as we have further held that there is no violation, whatsoever of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the other grounds of the assessee need not be gone into, as it would be of academic interest only." The Revenue

SRI SHIRDI SAINADH SPIRITUAL CENTRE,KOVVUR vs. ITO WARD-1, TANUKU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.168/Viz/2025

charitable purpose as per section 2(15) of the Act. 3. The Trust has undertaken multiple charitable activities, including providing

SRI SHIRIDI SAI NIGAMAGAMAM MAINTENANCE TRUST,KOVVUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD, RAJAHMUNDRY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.168/Viz/2025

charitable purpose as per section 2(15) of the Act. 3. The Trust has undertaken multiple charitable activities, including providing

BARRI NAGESWARARAO AND PALEPU RAGHAVENDRARAO MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, TURANGI,TURANGI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KAKINADA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is allowed for

charitable objects enshrined in Sec. 2 (15) of the Act as evidenced and established by THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS viz., INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT for different Assessment years viz., A.Y.s 2023-24 to 2024-25 and such utilisation was made to the threshold monetary limit of 85% of the total receipts/contributions available at its disposal, there is no MERIT in the findings

VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (VMRDA),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), 2ND FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAWAN, BASHEER BEGH, , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Viz/2020

trust or institution fall within the ambit of Section 2(15) is not a condition for cancellation of registration.” 3. Jodhpur Development Authority Vs. CIT (2012) 31 CCH 017 Jodh Trib, 27 taxmann.com 183 held that “if profit arises from sale of property it does not lose the character of charitable

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

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

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, , 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