M/S. SRI KRISHNADEVARAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

a) He failed to appreciate that the amount of fees collected by the Appellant from the students under the management quota was not capitation fee or in violation of any law for the time being in force. b) He failed to appreciate that the claim for deduction u/s 11 of the Act can be rejected in the circumstances prescribed u/s 13 of the Act and none of the circumstances envisaged in Section 13 is attracted in the case of the Appellant. 3) The Ld. CIT(Appeals) - 11 erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO who rejected the claim of the appellant u/s 11 of the Act for deduction of Depreciation as application of Income without appreciating the fact that the issue is no longer res integra consequent upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which allowed depreciation as an application of income. 4) The Ld. CIT(Appeals)- 11 erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO who rejected the claim of the appellant for deduction of 15% on gross receipts u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act without appreciating the fact that expenditure deducted by the Ld. AO while computing the amount eligible for deduction u/s 11 represents expenditure on application of income and expenditure incurred to earn the income. 5) The Ld. CIT(Appeals)- 11 erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO who rejected the claim of the appellant for deduction of INR 190 Lakhs u/s 11(2) made during assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Act as applicable to the relevant assessment year provides for filing application towards claim for deduction u/s 11(2) at any time before completion of assessment proceedings and the appellant had made the application during the assessment proceedings. 6) The Ld. CIT(Appeals) - 11 erred in not considering the correct interpretation of Sec 164 which provides for taxation of relevant income which is earned in violation of provisions Sec 13 of the Act and not the total income of the appellant.”