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

23 to AY 2024– 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

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 institutions. 16. In our considered view, the CIT(Exemptions) ought not to have rejected the application filed by the assessee trust in “Form No. 10AB” for permanent registration u/s 12AB as non-maintainable without affording it an opportunity to rectify the said procedural error. We are of firm conviction that the rendering of substantive justice should not be allowed

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 institutions. 16. In our considered view, the CIT(Exemptions) ought not to have rejected the application filed by the assessee trust in “Form No. 10AB” for permanent registration u/s 12AB as non-maintainable without affording it an opportunity to rectify the said procedural error. We are of firm conviction that the rendering of substantive justice should not be allowed

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

Trust vide its order in ITA No.927/09 dt.23.9.2009 has also affirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble ITAT in holding that corpus donations cannot be regarded as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. 5.3.5 Following the above decisions of the Tribunal (supra), relied upon by the assessee, we hold that voluntary contributions received for a specific

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

Trust vide its order in ITA No.927/09 dt.23.9.2009 has also affirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble ITAT in holding that corpus donations cannot be regarded as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. 5.3.5 Following the above decisions of the Tribunal (supra), relied upon by the assessee, we hold that voluntary contributions received for a specific

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

Trust vide its order in ITA No.927/09 dt.23.9.2009 has also affirmed the view taken by the Hon'ble ITAT in holding that corpus donations cannot be regarded as income under Section 2(24)(iia) of the Act. 5.3.5 Following the above decisions of the Tribunal (supra), relied upon by the assessee, we hold that voluntary contributions received for a specific

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VIJAYAWADA vs. VDM CHARITABLE TRRUST ,, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.277/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S V.D.M.Charitable Trust Income Tax (Exemptions) Bishop’S House Vijayawada Xavier Nagar Eluru [Pan : Aaatv5072F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.14/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.277/Viz/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S V.D.M.Charitable Trust Dy.Commissioner Of Bishop’S House Income Tax (Exemptions) Xavier Nagar Vijayawada Eluru [Pan : Aaatv5072F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.04.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .04.2019

23 .04.2019 2 I.T.A. No.277/Viz/2018 and CO No.14/Viz/2018 M/s VDM Charitable Trust, Eluru आदेश /O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: Delay: The revenue has filed the appeal with the delay of 9 days. The AO filed condonation petition requesting for condoning the delay, stating that due to transfers of the officers and staff

WOMEN & CHILD WELFARE CENTRE,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.236/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Women & Child Welfare Centre, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Garividi, Exemption Ward, Vizianagaram. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaatw 0407 H (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Suseel Kumar Agarwal प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Spg Mudaliar, Sr. Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 06/04/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

Trust, engaged in Charitable activities and registered under section 12A of the IT Act with registration No. II/37/94-95. The appellant for the AY 2017-18, while filing the return of income, ie ITR 7, has by mistake mentioned income of Rs. 84,000/- and Rs. 23

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

ANNAPURNA CHARITABLE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.98/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Annapurna Charitable Society, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Exemption Ward, Pan: Aaata 3097 P Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS TRUST - REGISTRATION OF - CLARIFICATION WITH REGARD TO TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME SUBSEQUENT TO INSERTION OF CLAUSE (ba) IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 12A CIRCULAR F. NO. 173/193/2019-ITA-I, DATED 23

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

section 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. 23. Further, it is noticed that Hon'ble. ITAT, Chennai held in the case of Tamilnadu Cricket Association

MANORAMA ENTERPRISES,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-1, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.385/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Manorama Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.31-32-41 Tds, Ward-1 Near Leelamahal Theatre Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aadfm5585H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R.L.N.Somayajulu, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

Charitable Trust vs. DCIT [(2018) 301 CTR 150 (Kar.)] by considering the judgment of the same High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. (supra) and held that “when the amendment made under section 200A of the Act, which has come into effect on 01/06/2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand

AVNC HIGH SCHOOL,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL, TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Charitable Trust vs. DCIT [(2018) 301 CTR 150 (Kar.)] by considering the judgment of the same High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. (supra) and held that “when the amendment made under section 200A of the Act, which has come into effect on 01/06/2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR(AH) VETERINARY HOSPITAL,,JAGGAMPETA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-1,, RAJAHMUNDRY

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blethe Asst. Director (Ah) Vs. Ito (Tds), Ward-1, Veterinary Hospital, D.No. 7-63, Rajahmundry. Gokavaram Road, Jaggampeta, East Godavari District. Pan No. Vpnao 1812 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust vs. DCIT [(2018) 301 CTR 150 (Kar.)] by considering the judgment of the same High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. (supra) and held that “when the amendment made under section 200A of the Act, which has come into effect on 01/06/2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand

AVNC HIGH SCHOOL, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL, TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Charitable Trust vs. DCIT [(2018) 301 CTR 150 (Kar.)] by considering the judgment of the same High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. (supra) and held that “when the amendment made under section 200A of the Act, which has come into effect on 01/06/2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand

PAVANI DEVI,,GUNTUR vs. THE CIT(A)-2,, GUNTUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Pavani Devi, Vs. Acit, Cpc (Tds), M/S. N. Koteswara & Co., Cas, Ghaziabad. D.No. 23-6-17/2, Patnam Bazar, Guntur. Pan No. Afmpd 2253 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Mrs. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 01/01/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao

Charitable Trust vs. (Smt. Pavani Devi) DCIT [(2018) 301 CTR 150 (Kar.)] by considering the judgment of the same High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. (supra) and held that “when the amendment made under section 200A of the Act, which has come into effect on 01/06/2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation

ARIHANT CONSTRUCTIONS, ,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.321-325/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2015-16) M/S Arihant Constructions Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S B.V.Rao & Co Llp Circle-4(1) Chartered Accountants Visakhapatnam Ff-1, Satya Lakshmi Vinayaka Towers, Madhuranagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aarfa0600P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.V.Rao, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.V.Subba Rao, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23 .08.2019

23-9-2013. It was also dispatched for service to the assessee on 24-9-2013 by Speed Post on the last known address. The Commissioner (Appeals) however, held that there was no proof of service of notice and since section 143(2) requires service of notice, the assessment was framed without complying with the mandatory requirements. Aggrieved