ACIT, Central Circle-1, Hyderabad V. Chandramma Educational Society, Secunderabad

ITA 1600/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61834 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAGHAVENDRA RAO; S RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. ASST. YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1440/HYD/2011 1441/HYD/2011 1442/HYD/2011 2003-04 2004-05 2006-07 ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD . M/S. SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AABTS 9158 K) 1418/HYD/2011 2009 - 10 ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD . M/S. KMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AABIK 3012 F) 1 595 /HYD/2011 1596/HYD/2011 1597/HYD/2011 1598/HYD/2011 200 6 - 0 7 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD . M/S. MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AABTM 7610 H) 1586/HYD/2011 2006-07 M/S. MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AABTM 7610 H) ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD . 1587/HYD/2011 1588/HYD/2011 1589/HYD/2011 2007 - 08 2008-09 2009-10 M/S. CHANDRAMMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SECUNDERABAD. (PAN AAATC 8090 J) ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD . 1599/HYD/2011 1600/HYD/2011 1601/HYD/2011 1602/HYD/2011 2006 - 07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD . M/S. CHANDRAMMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SECUNDERABAD (PAN AAATC 8090 J) 1583/HYD/2011 1584/HYD/2011 2003 - 04 2004-05 ST. MARTINS EDUCATION - AL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AADTS 0176 N) ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 2 1603/HYD/2011 1604/HYD/2011 1605/HYD/2011 1606/HYD/2011 1607/HYD/2011 1608/HYD/2011 1657/HYD/2011 2003 - 04 2004-05 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2005-06 ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD ST. MARTINS EDUCATION - AL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AADTS 0176 N) 1585/HYD/2011 2004 - 05 M/S. CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAATC 4041 P) ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD 1609/HYD/2011 1610/HYD/2011 1611/HYD/2011 1612/HYD/2011 1613/HYD/2011 1614/HYD/2011 1615/HYD/2011 2004 - 05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2003 - 04 ASTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, HYDERABAD M/S. CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD (PAN AAATC 4041 P) ASSESSEES BY : S/ SHRI V.RAGHAVENDRA RAO & S.RAMA RAO DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI V.SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING 8 .2.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09.04.2012 O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS A BUNCH OF 33 APPEALS CONCERNING SIX EDUCATION AL INSTITUTIONS. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAME OF CONVEN IENCE. REVENUES APPEALS CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONA L SOCIETY, HYDERABAD: ITA NO.1440/HYD/201 1 ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 ITA NO.1441/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04 ITA NO.1442/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04 2. LET US FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE APPE ALS CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDER ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 3 OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 8.6.2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 2003- 04, 2004-05 AND 2006-07. 3. THOUGH COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE THRE E APPEALS, ASSESSEE RAISED ELABORATE GROUNDS IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04, WHEREAS COMMON CONCISE GROUNDS IN THE APPEALS F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2006-07, AND AS SUCH, WE PREFER TO REPRODUCE HEREUNDER, THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05, WHICH READ AS UNDER- 1. WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY IS M ANDATORY AS PER THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.210(23 C)(VI) FO THE I.T. ACT AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERPRETATIO N. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT WHEN GROSS RECEIPTS EXCEED RS.1 CRORE, APPROVAL U/S. 10( 23C)(VI) IS MANDATORY AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEM PTION U/S. 11 OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT SECTION 10(23C) AS SUCH IS NOT A REPLACEMENT OF SECTION 10( 22) AND S.10(22A) BUT ONLY SUB-CLAUSES (IIIAD) AND (IIIAC) OF THE ERSTWHILE SECTION 10(22) AND 10(22A) RESPECTIVELY. 4. WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT IS WAS SECTION 10(22) THAT PROVIDED FOR EXEMPTION OF THE E DUCATIONAL INCOM E OF THE TRUSTS, SOCIETIES ETC., AND NOT SECTION 11 . 5. WHETHER THE CIT(A) ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET THAT COULD BE USED TO PRO MOTE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SYSTEMS RUN BY THE TRUST IS ALLOW ED AS APPLICATION OF INCOM E. THEREFORE THE DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON THE CAPITAL ASSET WHERE ENTIRE COST OF ACQUISITION IS EITHER WRITTEN OFF IN THE FIRST YEAR ITSELF OR T HE COST OF ACQUISITION IS TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME AS HAS BEEN HELD IN RULING OF HBLE SUPREM E COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD., AND ANOTHER V/S. UNION OF INDIA (199 ITR 44). 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS FILED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BESIDES THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR MATTERS FILED BEFORE US. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF ITS INCOME UNDER S.11 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH A OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.4. 2009 IN THE CASES OF ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 4 VASAVI ACADEMY OF EDUCATION, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.11 33/HYD/2006 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND ORDER DATED 17.4.2009 I N ITA NO.1206/HYD/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF DONATIONS ARE RECEIVED COMPULSORILY FOR THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS, BY WHATEVER NAME IT MAY BE CALLED, I.E. DONATION, BUIL DING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND, ETC. OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE, FROM THE STUDENTS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION EITHER UNDER S.10(23C) OR UNDER S.11 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE C ONSTITUTIONAL BENCH OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATIONS AN D OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS (2002) 8 SCC 481 EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEES FOR THE ADMISSION OF STUDENTS OVE R AND ABOVE FEES PRESCRIBED BY THE PRIVATE INSTITUTION AND HELD THAT THE INSTITUTION WHICH ARE COLLECTING CAPITATION FEES FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENT S OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS CHARITABLE/EDUCAT ION INSTITUTION. APEX COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE FEES COLLECTED OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF THE STUDENT HAS TO BE CONSTRUC TED AS CAPITATION FEE. THE APEX COURT, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CONCERNED UNI VERSITY AND REGULATED BODY HAS TO TAKE ACTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE RECOG NITION IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED FOR THE COURSES. SAME VIEW WAS TAKEN BY APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER VS. STA TE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER (2003) 6 SCC 697. IF THE DONATIONS WERE RE CEIVED COMPULSORILY FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION EITHER U/S 10(23C) OR U/S 11 OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE LOWER A UTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEES IN THIS CASE, IN OUR OPINION, THE MATTER REQUIRES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING THE CAPITATION FEES FROM STU DENTS OR NOT AND IT IS NECESSARY FOR BRINGING THE ACTUAL FACTS ON RECORD F OR DECIDING THE ISSUE EFFECTIVELY. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY US IN THE C ASE OF M/S. JAMIA NIZAMIA IN ITA NO.763/HYD/2007 DATED 30.6.2008, IN THE CASE OF INTERNATIONAL ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 5 EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO.494/HYD/20 07 AND 518/HYD/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 2003 AN D 2004-05 AND SRI SAI SUDHIR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD IN ITA NO .999/HYD/20-06 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONS IDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M /S ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOT HER (SUPRA), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED AND THEREAFTER D ECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 IN CASE IT COLLECTED ANY MONEY BY WHATEVER N AME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS. 5. BEFORE PARTING WE MAY NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ONLY FOR QUANTIFI CATION OF THE EXEMPTION UNDER S.11, THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE AND NOT OTHE RWISE. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO MENTION HEREIN THAT THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. RAHIM AND OTHERS V/S. CIT (333 ITR 379), HELD PLACING RELIANCE ON THE EARLIER JUDGMENT OF JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. KRISHNA MINING CO. (107 ITR 702), THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN GO INTO THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BEFORE IT AND NOT ON OTH ER ISSUES. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT THE EXPRESSION SUCH ORDER AS IT THINKS FIT IN S.254(1) WAS WIDE ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THE POWER OF R EMAND TO THE AUTHORITY, COMPETENT TO MAKE THE REQUISITE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, EVEN THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT HAVE MADE AN ORDER ENHANCIN G THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE OUT A THIRD CASE ARBITRARILY. ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 6 WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THIS JUDGMENT. THIS JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED IN THE CONTEXT, WHEREIN THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE SALE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE OR NOT AND NOT RELATING TO THE QUANTUM OF SALE PRIC E. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL ON APPEAL REDUCED THE SALE PRICE TO HALF OF THE AMO UNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, INSTEAD OF DECIDING ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS ABOVE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IS RELATING TO ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION UNDER S.11 OR UNDER S.10(23C), AND WHI LE ADJUDICATING ON THIS ISSUE ONE HAS TO SEE THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIMING O F DEDUCTION UNDER S.11. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN PROPER ADDRESSED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXEMPTION UND ER S.11. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.11, WE HAVE GIVEN SUITABLE DIRECTIONS, IN T HE PRECEDING PARA, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THAT BEING SO, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE NOTED ABOVE, HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEAL RELATE S TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE TRUST HAD CLAIMED EXP ENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE PU RCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET USED TO PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVE OF THE TRUST IS ALLOW ED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME, DEPRECIATION IS NOT ALLOWABLE ON CAPITAL AS SET WHERE THE ENTIRE COST OF ACQUISITION IS EITHER WRITTEN OFF IN THE FIRST Y EAR ITSELF OR THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS TREATED AS APPLICATION OF INCOME. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DRAWN SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF ESCORTS LTD. (199 ITR 44). THE CIT(A), ON APPEAL, HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 7 7. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. SIMIL AR ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE JAIPUR BENCH OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE (108 TTJ 393)(JP), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCT ION, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ARRIVE AT THE INCOME AVAILABLE FOR APPLICATION TO C HARITABLE PURPOSE. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA V/S. IAC (5 0 ITD 472), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT MERELY BECAUSE ENTIRE VALUE OF ASSET IS ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DENY CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION UNLESS THE VALUE OF ASSET HA S BEEN ACTUALLY ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE. IF NOT SO ALLOWED IN THE YEAR OF ACQU ISITION, ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. FURTHER, IT WAS HELD BY T HE COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DY. CIT V/S. ADI SANKARA TR UST (46 SOT 230) THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE TRUST IS CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS WHERE COST OF THE RELEVANT ASSETS STOOD CLAIMED AS AN APPLICATION OF INCOME FOR A PRECEDING AND/OR THE CURRENT YEAR UNDER S.11(1), ITS CLAIM UN DER S.32(1)IS ELIGIBLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS ASSETS AND WHERE ENTIRE COST OF THE ASSET STANDS ALLOWED BY WAY OF APPLICATION OF INCOME UNDER S.11( 1), THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.32(1) IS NOT ALLOWA BLE AS THE TRUST IS NOT UNDERTAKING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY IN RESPECT OF EACH AS SET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, WHETHER THE VALUE OF SUCH ASSET WAS IN FAC T ALLOWED UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO ALLOWED, THE DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WAS NOT ALLOW ED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW DE PRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVE NUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, I N THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDIN GLY REDECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 8 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. REVENUES APPEAL CONCERNING KMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY: ITA NO.1418/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10 9. NOW, WE MAY TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL, ITA NO.1418/HYD/2011, CONCERNING KMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIET Y, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER FO THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 16.5.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 10. FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER RECOGNITION UNDER S.10(23C) (VI) IS MANDATORY WHEN RECEIPTS EXCEED RS .1 CRORE OR WHETHER ALTERNATIVE RELIEF U/S. 11 IS AUTOMATICALLY AVAILAB LE TO ASSESSEE REGISTERED UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVEN UE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT , IN PARAS 4 AND 5 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THIS CASE ALSO AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONS IDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M /S ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOT HER (SUPRA), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED AND THEREAFTER D ECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 IN CASE IT COLLECTED ANY MONEY BY WHATEVER N AME IT IS CALLED I.E., ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 9 DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS. 11. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATE S TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/ 2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARA 7 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE TH E IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MAT TER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATI ON CLAIMED, WHETHER THE VALUE OF SUCH ASSET WAS IN FACT ALLOWED UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO ALLOWED, THE DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WAS NOT ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE U NDER S.11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NI RMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS SET ASIDE TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE IS SUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. APPEALS CONCERNING MALLAREDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY REVENUES APPEALS: ITA NO.1595/HYD/201 1 ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO.1596/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 ITA NO.1597/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 ITA NO.1598/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 10 ASSESSEES APPEAL: ITA NO.1586/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 13. NOW, WE MAY TAKE UP THE FIVE APPEALS CONCERNIN G MALLAREDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. OUT OF THEM, FOUR ARE BY THE R EVENUE AND ONE IS BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE BEING CROSS-APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SIMILAR BUT SEPARATE O RDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD, ALL DATED 4.7.2011 REVENUES APPEALS: 14. THE ONLY FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN APPEALS ITA N O.1595/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ITA NO.1596/HYD/201 1 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 OF THE REVENUE IS WHETHER RECOGNITION UNDER S.10(23C) (VI) IS MANDATORY WHEN RECEIPTS EXCEED RS.1 CRORE OR WHETHE R ALTERNATIVE RELIEF U/S. 11 IS AUTOMATICALLY AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE REGISTERE D UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DE ALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIO NAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PAR AS 4 AND 5 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES IN THIS CASE ALSO FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND REMIT BACK THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFF ICER THAT HE SHALL RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (SUPRA), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIB ED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTE R GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 IN CASE IT COL LECTED ANY MONEY BY ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 11 WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSI ON OF STUDENTS. 15. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2007-08, AND THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1508 AND 1598/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8-09 AND 2009-10, RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECI ATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE , WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIO NAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARA 7 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS I SSUE IMPUGNED IN THESE APPEALS ALSO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO VERIFY IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, WHETHER T HE VALUE OF SUCH ASSET WAS IN FACT ALLOWED UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO AL LOWED, THE DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WAS NOT ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPL ICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE IS SUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSEES APPEAL: ITA NO.1586/HYD/2011 ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 12 17. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY TOWARDS CORPU S OF THE TRUST, AND EFFECTIVE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEH ALF READS AS FOLLOWS-. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE AP PELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T REATING THE CORPUS RECEIVED OF RS.2,40,000/- AS THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMO UNT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIET Y AND THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. 18. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT NO DETAILS ABOUT THE NATURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS/DONATIONS OR THE DETAILS OF THE DONORS WERE FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE DONATIONS WERE RECEIV ED WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THE DONORS THAT THE DONATIONS SHOULD FORM PART OF THE CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A PARTICULAR RECEIPT AS NON-TAXABLE, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A), ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE CO NTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY IT ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITATION FEE COLLECTED F ROM STUDENTS/PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS OR THEIR RELATIVES IN THE GUISE OF DONATIO NS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT BEHALF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE CIT (A) TOO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT BEHA LF. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE, AND RESTORE TH E MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDE NCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO PROVE THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 13 WITH A DIRECTION TO FORM CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE TRU ST OR THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITATION FEE RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS /PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS OR THEIR RELATIVES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL THERE AFTER DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. APPEALS CONCERNING CHANDRAMMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. REVENUES APPEALS: ITA NO.1599/HYD/201 1 ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO.1600/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 ITA NO.1601/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09 ITA NO.1602/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 & ASSESSEES APPEAL: ITA NO.1587/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 ITA NO.1588/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2008-09 ITA NO.1589/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10 20. NOW, WE MAY TAKE UP THE SEVEN APPEALS CONCERNI NG CHANDRAMMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. OUT OF THEM, FOUR ARE BY THE REVENUE AND THREE ARE BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE BEING CROSS-APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10. ALL THESE AP PEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 5.7.2011 REVENUES APPEALS: 21. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2009-10, BEING ITA NOS. 1600 TO 1602/HYD /2011 RESPECTIVELY, IS WHETHER RECOGNITION UNDER S.10(23C) (VI) IS MANDATO RY WHEN RECEIPTS EXCEED RS.1 CRORE OR WHETHER ALTERNATIVE RELIEF U/S . 11 IS AUTOMATICALLY AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE REGISTERED UNDER S.12AA OF TH E ACT. WE HAVE DEALT ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 14 WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/ 2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARAS 4 AND 5 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASID E THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THIS CASE ALSO FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH A DIRECTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONSIDER THE ENTI RE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ISLAMI C ACADEMY OF EDUCATION & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (SUPRA ), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNA TAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO T ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 IN CASE IT COLLECTED ANY MONEY BY WHATEVER N AME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS. 22. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEALS FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO 2009-10, AND THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL ITA NOS.1599/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND 2 009-10, RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DEALI NG WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. FO R THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARA 7 HEREINABOVE, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE IMPUGNED IN THE SE APPEALS ALSO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY IN RESP ECT OF EACH ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, WHETHER THE VALUE OF SUCH ASS ET WAS IN FACT ALLOWED ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 15 UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO ALLOWED, THE DEPRECIAT ION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WAS NOT ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RE QUIRED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPLICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 23. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSEES APPEALS ITA NO.1587 TO 1589/HYD/2011: 24. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEAL RELATE S TO ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE SOCIETY TOWARDS CORPU S OF THE TRUST, AND EFFECTIVE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEH ALF, AS TAKEN FROM APPEAL, ITA NO.1587/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 RE ADS AS FOLLOWS- . 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE AP PELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T REATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED OF RS.55,58,000/- AS THE INC OME OF THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMO UNT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIET Y AND THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. BUT FOR THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN GROUND NO.2 ABOVE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL IN THE APPEALS FOR THE OTHER YEARS AS WEL L, AND THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THAT GROUND ARE RS.92,49,650 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND RS.64,93,000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 16 25. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE DEALT WITH IDENTICAL ISSUE WHILE DEALING WI TH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOC IETY, VIZ. ITA NO.1586/HYD/2011, IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE. THE CIRC UMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONTES TED IN THESE APPEALS, AND ALSO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE NOTED IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS IS SUE, AND RESTORE THE MATER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTI ON TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDE NCE BEFORE HIM, TO PROVE THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED WERE WITH A DIRECTION TO FORM CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITATION FEE RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS/PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS OR THEIR RELATIV ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL THEREAFTER DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 26. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. APPEALS CONCERNING ST. MARTINS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. REVENUES APPEALS: ITA NO.1603/HYD/201 1 ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 ITA NO.1604/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 ITA NO.1605/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 ITA NO.1606/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITA NO.1607/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ITA NO.1608/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.1657/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 17 ASSESSEES APPEAL: ITA NO.1583/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2003-04 ITA NO.1584/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 27. NOW, WE MAY TAKE UP THE NINE APPEALS CONCERNIN G ST. MARTIN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. OUT OF THEM, SEVE N ARE BY THE REVENUE AND TWO ARE BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE BEING CROSS-APPE ALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST TWO COMMON ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD BOTH DATE D 1.7.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND 2006-07 TO 2009-10; AND ONE ORDER OF THAT VERY DATE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06. REVENUES APPEALS: 28. THE FIRST ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, EXCEPT ITA NO.1657/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, I S WHETHER RECOGNITION UNDER S.10(23C) (VI) IS MANDATORY WHEN RECEIPTS EXC EED RS.1 CRORE OR WHETHER ALTERNATIVE RELIEF U/S. 11 IS AUTOMATICALLY AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE REGISTERED UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING G ROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISC USSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARAS 4 AND 5 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THIS CASE ALSO FOR ALL THE YEARS UND ER APPEAL AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRE CTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT O F JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATI ON & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (SUPRA), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA ), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 18 AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 I N CASE IT COLLECTED ANY MONEY BY WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE F OR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS. 29. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN ITA NO.1657/HYD/20 11 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE RE MAINING APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT O F DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HERE INABOVE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN TH E APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIO NAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARA 7 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS I SSUE IMPUGNED IN THESE APPEALS ALSO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO VERIFY IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, WHETHER T HE VALUE OF SUCH ASSET WAS IN FACT ALLOWED UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO AL LOWED, THE DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET WAS NOT ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPL ICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE IS SUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 30. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 19 ASSESSEES APPEALS 31. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05, B EING ITA NOS.1583 AND 1584/HYD/2011, RELATES TO ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIO NS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY TOWARDS CORPUS OF THE TRUST, AND E FFECTIVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHALF, AS TAKEN FROM APPEAL, ITA NO.1583/HYD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 READS AS FOLLOWS-. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE AP PELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T REATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED OF RS.28,00,000/- AS THE INC OME OF THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMO UNT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIET Y AND THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. BUT FOR THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN GROUND NO.2 ABOVE, GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL IN THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05 AS WELL, AND THE AMOUNT MENTIONED FOR THAT YEAR IS RS.4,50,000. 32. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE DEALT WITH IDENTICAL ISSUE WHILE DEALING WI TH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOC IETY, VIZ. ITA NO.1586/HYD/2011, IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE. THE CIRC UMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONTES TED IN THESE APPEALS, AND ALSO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE NOTED IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS IS SUE, AND RESTORE THE MATER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTI ON TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDE NCE BEFORE HIM, TO PROVE ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 20 THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED WERE WITH A DIRECTION TO FORM CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITATION FEE RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS/PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS OR THEIR RELATIV ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL THEREAFTER DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 33. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. APPEALS CONCERNING CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABA D. REVENUES APPEALS: ITA NO.1609/HYD/201 1 ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05 ITA NO.1610/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 ITA NO.1611/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 ITA NO.1612/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ITA NO.1613/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ITA NO.1614/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ITA NO.1621/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & ASSESSEES APPEAL: ITA NO.1585/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YE AR 2004-05 34. NOW, WE MAY TAKE UP THE EIGHT APPEALS CONCERNI NG CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. OUT OF THEM, SEVEN ARE BY THE REVENUE AND ONE IS BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE BEING CROSS-APPEALS F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD BOTH DATED 1.7.2011, BEING A SEPARATE O RDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND A COMMON ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10. REVENUES APPEALS: 35. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE A PPEALS IS WHETHER RECOGNITION UNDER S.10(23C) (VI) IS MANDATORY WHEN RECEIPTS EXCEED RS.1 CRORE OR WHETHER ALTERNATIVE RELIEF U/S. 11 IS AUTO MATICALLY AVAILABLE TO ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 21 ASSESSEE REGISTERED UNDER S.12AA OF THE ACT. WE H AVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING G ROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISC USSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARAS 4 AND 5 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THIS CASE ALSO FOR ALL THE YEARS UND ER APPEAL AND REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRE CTION TO ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE SHALL RECONSIDER THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT O F JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATI ON & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (SUPRA), AND IN THE CASED OF T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS (SUPRA ), AND FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE FEES PRESCRIBED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 I N CASE IT COLLECTED ANY MONEY BY WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED I.E., DONATION, BUILDING FUND, AUDITORIUM FUND ETC. ETC., OVER AND ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED FEE F OR ADMISSION OF STUDENTS. 36. THE NEXT ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECI ATION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE HEREINABOVE , WHILE DEALING WITH THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THE APPEALS ITA NOS.1440 TO1442/HYD/2011 CONCERNING SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIO NAL SOCIETY. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN THAT CONTEXT, IN PARA 7 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS I SSUE IMPUGNED IN THESE APPEALS ALSO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIREC TED TO VERIFY IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSET ON WHICH DEPRECIATION CLAIMED, WHETHER T HE VALUE OF SUCH ASSET WAS IN FACT ALLOWED UNDER S.11, AND IF IT WAS SO AL LOWED, THE DEPRECIATION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSET. ONLY IF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 22 WAS NOT ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE UNDER S.11, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION THEREON, AS PER THE RATE APPL ICABLE TO THOSE ASSETS, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF MAHILA SIDH NIRMAN YOJNA, CITED SUPRA. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY REDECIDE THE IS SUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 37. IN THE RESULT, THESE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSEES APPEALS 38. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE RELATES TO ASSESSMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E SOCIETY TOWARDS CORPUS OF THE TRUST, AND EFFECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS BEHALF READ AS FOLLOWS-. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS ERRONEOUS TO THE EXTENT IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE AP PELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T REATING THE CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED OF RS.3,46,000/- AS THE INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMO UNT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIET Y AND THEREFORE, THE RECEIPT IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. 39. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE DEALT WITH IDENTICAL ISSUE WHILE DEALING WI TH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOC IETY, VIZ. ITA NO.1586/HYD/2011, IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE. THE CIRC UMSTANCES LEADING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONTES TED IN THESE APPEALS, AND ALSO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE NOTED IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE. IN THIS VIEW O F THE MATTER, FOR THE ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 23 DETAILED REASONS DISCUSSED IN PARA 18 HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS IS SUE, AND RESTORE THE MATER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTI ON TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDE NCE BEFORE HIM, TO PROVE THAT THE DONATIONS RECEIVED WERE WITH A DIRECTION TO FORM CORPUS OF THE ASSESSEE TRUST AND THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CAPITATION FEE RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS/PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS OR THEIR RELATIV ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL THEREAFTER DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASS ESSEE. 40. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 41. TO SUM UP, ALL THE 33 APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A S WELL AS ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 9.4.2012 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 09 TH APRIL, 2012 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, 16 - 2 - 740/51, KALYAN NAGAR, HYDERABAD 2. M/S. KMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, LAXMAN REDDY AVENUE, DUNDIGUL, QUTUBULLAPUR MANDAL, R.R. DISTRICT. HYDER ABAD 3. M/S. MALLA REDDY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SURVEY NO. 59, JAYANAGAR, BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. 4. M/S. CHANDRAMMA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, SURVEY NO.59, JAYANAGAR, BOWENPALLY, SECUND ERABAD. ITA NO.1440/HYD/2011 & OTHERS SRI VENKATA SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS. 24 5. ST. MARTINS EDUCATION- AL SOCIETY, C/O., SHRI S .RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 6. CMR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, C/O., SHRI S.RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 3-65-643, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE, FLAT NO.102, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 7. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, HYDERABAD 8. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) I, HYDERABAD 9. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL HYDERABAD 10. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S.