Case LawHigh Court › Wp/322/2015 Of M/S. Vkdv Satyanarayana R...

Wp/322/2015 Of M/S. Vkdv Satyanarayana Raju Educational Society v. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii

High Court 20 Jan 2015 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wp/322/2015 Of M/S. Vkdv Satyanarayana Raju Educational Society v. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii
Date of order
20 Jan 2015
Assessment year(s)
2013-14
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wp/322/2015 Of M/S. Vkdv Satyanarayana Raju Educational Society v. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, the High Court (2015) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Hence, we dismiss the Writ Petition.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRAPRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.322 OF 2015 DATED: 20.01.2015 Between: M/s.VKDV Satyanarayana Raju Educational Society … Petitioner And The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.322of2015 ORDER:(per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The Writ Petition has been filed impugning the order ofthe learned Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax (II),Hyderabad dated 22.09.2014 whereby the application forapproval under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14was rejected. The writ petitioner claims the benefit as required underSection 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, as such, the application wasmade. The Commissioner after examining the object clauseof the memorandum of association of the society found thatthe applicant was not rendering its objects only foreducational purposes thereafter applying law correctly,rejected the application. It does not appear to be an absurdone. This Writ Court cannot interfere with the same. Hence, we dismiss the Writ Petition. However, it wouldbe open for the writ petitioner to apply afresh on thechanged circumstances conforming to the requirement ofthe provisions of Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. No order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ 20[th] JANUARY, 2015. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J kvni
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan