DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, which held that Section 11(6) of the IT Act is prospective. Therefore, the denial of depreciation was not upheld.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders concerning the allowability of depreciation for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee did not appear, and the appeals were heard ex-parte.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, denying depreciation to charitable trusts, was retrospective or prospective in its application.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- DIT (E) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust32 citing383 ITR 517 · 2016 · HC
- Director of Income Tax v. Al Ameen Charitable Trust4 citing242 Taxmann 4 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member Both these appeals are filed by the revenue which are directed against two separate orders of CIT (A)-14, LTU, Bangalore both dated 28.01.2016 for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing and the appeals were heard ex- parte qua the assessee because it was noticed that the issue involved in both these appeals is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. The only issue involved in both these appeals is regarding allowability of deduction of depreciation. The ld. DR of revenue supported the assessment order. He also submitted that the provisions of sub section 6 to section 11 should be considered as clarificatory in nature and therefore, the same should be held to be retrospective. He submitted copy of a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Director of Income-tax & 770/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 3 Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Trust as reported in 242 Taxman 4 (SC) wherein it was held that SLP is granted against the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court wherein it was held that section 11(6) inserted vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 denying depreciation while computing income of charitable trust is prospective in nature and operates with effect from 1-4-2015.This judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is reported in 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka).
We have considered the submissions of ld. DR of revenue and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We find that as per the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Director of Income-tax, Exemptions vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (supra), it was held that section 11(6) of IT Act is prospective in nature and operates w.e.f. 01.04.2015. as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the same case, SLP filed by the revenue against this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court was granted. In our considered opinion, even now, the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court holds field because this judgment has not been reversed by Hon’ble Apex Court and only permission was granted to the revenue for filing appeal against this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and operation of the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence we are bound to follow the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court which is in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A) in both the years.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
More judgments on Section 11(6)
- M/S. Brothers of the Sacred Heart of Jesus… vs ACIT, Exemptions, CoimbatoreITA 1584/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs Indian Institute of Banking and Finance…ITA 3394/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT(Exemptions)-1(1), Mumbai vs Indian Institute of Banking and Finance…ITA 3393/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Saqlainia Shikchhan Prasar Samiti, Jhansi vs ITO Ward Exemption Agra Rcc, AgraITA 321/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Rotary Eye Institute, NaITA 375/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed11 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026