Itta/100/2025 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Myadam Kishan Rao Charitable Trust

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUSTTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P,SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 100 OF 2025 (lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal under Section 260 A of the lncome Tax Act., [1961]against,.the order made in I.T.A.No.445lHydl2023, [Dated ][28.06.2024 on ][the file ][of]the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad [Benches ]["A", ][Hyderabad ][for ][the]Assessment Year 2022-23, preferred against the order [made ][in]F.No.ClT(E)/HYD/Cancellation/AAATM5719Jl2023-24 Dated 30.06.2023 on the fileof the Commissioner of lncome Tax(Exemptions), Hyderabad [preferred ][against ][the]Order made in PAN No.AAATMS719J, Dated 12.12.2019 on the [file of ][lncome Tax]Officer (Exemption) Ward ['l(2), ]Hyderabad. Between:Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND Myadam Kishan Rao Charitable f rust, 10-2-262/263, [West [tlarredpally,]Secunderabad - 500026. PAN. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. VIJHAY K PUNNA [(SENIOR SC FOR ][ITD)]Counsel for the Respondents : -- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{YANT) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO I.T.T.A No.l00 of 2025 JUDCMENT: tprr lltn'hlt' .\ri Justit e P..Sam Koshvt Heard Mr. Vijhay K Punna, leamed Senior Standing Counselfor the Incorne Tax Department, appearing for the appeltant.Perused the record.for the Incorne Tax Department, appearing for the appeltant.Perused the record. 2. The instant is the appeal filed under Section 260 (A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The challenge is to theorder passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(for short "the Tribunal"), Hyderabad Benches-A at Hyderabad, inITA No. 44 5 /FI,v der attadl I 2023 dec ided on 28.0 6.2024. 3. Learned Standing Counsel lor the appellant drawn attentionto the substantial question of law proposed under the Appeathighlighting the fact that the leamed Tribunal has erred in law andnot properly appreciating the Specified Violations under theexplanation to Section 12 AB(4) of the Act.4. It is also the contention that the authorities is also the contention that the authorities also the contention that the authorities the contention that the authorities contention that the authorities the authorities authorities have failed to 4. It is also the contention that the authorities is also the contention that the authorities also the contention that the authorities the contention that the authorities contention that the authorities the authorities authorities have failed tolook into the contravention as otherwise reflected under section l3(1) (c) of the Act, inasmuch as, the respondent/assessee misusing 4. It is also the contention that the authorities is also the contention that the authorities also the contention that the authorities the contention that the authorities contention that the authorities the authorities authorities have failed tolook into the contravention as otherwise reflected under section l3(1) (c) of the Act, inasmuch as, the respondent/assessee misusing the trust propefty for commercial exploitation. However, goingthrough the impugned order, particularly, the finding of facts thathave been deliberated and discussed by the Tribunal fromparagraph No.14 onwards, we find that all the objections andcontentions, which the learned Senior Standing Counsel has raisedin the instant appeal has been thoroughly gone into by the Tribunaland has decided these objections one by one by way of [passing ][a]detailed and reasoned order. Another aspect which has come to thenotice of the Bench is that, there has not been any dispute,so far as the activities carried out by the trustees beingin consonance to the provisions of the Trust Deed. Further,it is also not the case ofthe appellant that the trustees have violatedany of the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882,(for short "the Trust Act"). To make things worse for the Revenue,we also find that the trustees before the commencement of thedevelopment activities in the trust property had taken appropriateapproval from the competent [jurisdictional ]Court as required undersection 34 of the Trust Act. A copy of the same is also enclosed [in]the appeal memo. \ i=::"!r-d.i:P 5. 5. Going through all the aforesaid [facts, ][apparently, ][there ][does]not seem to be any [violation ][of ][the trust ][deeds ][and ][also ][not ][in]violation of any provisions of [the ][Trust ][Act. ][In ][the ][absence ][of]which, the findings of the [Tribunal ][seems ][to ][be'purely ][finding ][of]facts. Therefore. we do not [find any ][substantial question ][of ][law]made out by the appellant [calling ][for ][interference ][in ][the ][impugned]order. 6. The Appeat fails and is, accordingly, [dismissed. There ][shall]be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall]stand closed. SD/.cH. NAGABHUSHAMBA /UTY REGISTRAR [./] \oee //TRUE SECTION To, I The lncome [[Tax ]][[Appellate ][Tribunal ]][[Tribunal ]][[Hyderabad ]][Benches ]['A" ][Hyderabad][[Hvderabad]] I The lncome [[Tax ]][[Appellate ][Tribunal ]][[Tribunal ]][[Hyderabad ]]I iiiE ciiifi..r""ilr [rnil*" ][r"'ir'emptions)' ][[Hvderabad]][[waio ]][[[t1z1' ]]][[Hyoerabad']] 3 The The lncome [ra* ][ott'cerlix"kpti"tl ][[waio ]][[[t1z1' ]]][[Hyoerabad']][[il;tncome'Tai ]] 3 The The lncome [[[t1z1' ]]]4 one [cC to ][sri ][Viihav ] [Jffi::"; ][[il;tncome'Tai ]][Depadment ][(oPUC)]5. Two [CD CoPies] Ks/ghw HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 JUDGMENT l.T.T.A.No.100 [of ][2025] Dismissing the [l.T.T.A]Without costs. q"{KA&6, 1HE [T, ]Rr(-(of.:\1E SEP 2U:: ii,,,,^\,i' ;."5s:,\-:=_--_;7