Loading High Court cases…
1,252 orders · Page 8 of 26
The High Court held that the carry forward of excess application of income from earlier years for set off against current year's income is permissible for charitable trusts. This is based on the principle of computing income on commercial principles and the benevolent provisions of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
The High Court held that the provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation are applicable to charitable trusts, aligning with Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The court found that depreciation is a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of a trust on commercial principles.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, based on commercial principles and Supreme Court decisions. It also upheld the carry forward of deficits as justified.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable to a charitable trust on commercial principles. The court relied on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments which affirmed that income of a trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for depreciation.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, based on commercial principles and Supreme Court decisions. It also upheld the carry forward of deficits as per established legal interpretations.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income. Income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for depreciation.
The High Court held that provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation are applicable to charitable trusts. Depreciation is allowable even if the asset cost was claimed as application of income, as it's a commercial principle for computing real income.
The High Court held that charitable trusts are eligible for carry forward of deficits and can claim depreciation on assets, computing income on commercial principles. This aligns with established judicial precedents.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was treated as application of income, based on commercial principles. It also affirmed the allowability of carry forward of losses and set off of deficits for charitable trusts.
The High Court held that the provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation claims are applicable to charitable trusts. Depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, to compute the real income of the trust on commercial principles.
The High Court held that allowing set-off of excess expenditure from earlier years against future income is a justified finding based on correct legal interpretation. Income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the controversy regarding depreciation for charitable trusts is settled by Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions, affirming that depreciation is allowable on commercial principles. The court also found that the ITAT's decision on set-off of brought forward expenses was justified.
The High Court held that allowing carry forward and set off of earlier years' deficits against current year's income is justified based on commercial principles and the interpretation of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The court relied on its own previous judgments and Supreme Court decisions.
The High Court held that the carry forward of excess application of income by a charitable trust is permissible. This is based on the principle of computing income on commercial principles, as supported by various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, as long as it's computed on commercial principles. This is supported by Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, based on commercial principles and Supreme Court decisions. It also upheld the carry forward of deficits as per established legal interpretations.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, as it is a legitimate deduction on commercial principles for computing real income. It also upheld the carry forward of excess application of income.
The High Court held that expenses reduced from export turnover must also be reduced from total turnover, as per Supreme Court decisions. It also found no substantial question of law regarding set-off of losses.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the carry forward of deficits. This was based on the principle that income of charitable trusts should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for depreciation and adjustment of expenses from earlier years against subsequent income.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts, and deficits can be carried forward and set off against subsequent income. This is based on computing income on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the carry forward of deficits for set off against current year's income is permissible for educational trusts, aligning with commercial principles and judicial precedents. The court found that depreciation can be considered a legitimate deduction for computing the real income of a trust.
The High Court held that the furnishing of alleged forged income tax returns by the petitioners, in the context of their prior partnership and dispute, could not be construed as cheating respondent no.2. The court found the proceedings initiated against the petitioners to be without jurisdiction.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to allow carry forward of expenditure/loss from earlier years was justified. This was based on the principle that income of charitable trusts should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for adjustments of expenses against subsequent income.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets of a charitable trust, even if their cost was previously allowed as application of income. The income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for normal depreciation.
The High Court held that normal depreciation is a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of a charitable trust on general principles or under Section 11(1)(a). Income of a trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for depreciation.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets even if the expenditure was allowed as an application of income. This is based on the principle of computing income on commercial principles for charitable trusts.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, and that carry forward of deficits for set-off is permissible based on commercial principles and relevant case law. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were deemed not to arise.
The High Court held that the controversy regarding depreciation and set-off of losses in the hands of a charitable trust is settled by previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These judgments allow depreciation and consider adjustments of expenses as application of income on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision to allow carry-forward of deficits for set-off was justified. This was based on the principle that income of charitable trusts should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for adjustments of expenses from earlier years against subsequent income.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable for charitable trusts computed on commercial principles, and that carry forward of deficits is permissible. The substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue did not arise for consideration.
The tribunal noted that the respondents had paid a substantial sum towards the arrears as directed. Therefore, no contempt was made out, and the proceedings were dropped.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the carry forward of deficits. This was based on the principle that income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles, and adjustments for earlier year expenses against subsequent income are permissible applications of income.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets even if their cost was claimed as application of income, and that set-off of losses is applicable to charitable trusts. The court relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments.
The High Court held that the carry forward of deficits and depreciation for set-off against current income is permissible for charitable trusts, based on established Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The court found that income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation are applicable to charitable trusts, affirming that income should be computed on commercial principles. The court relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments on the matter.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law under Section 260-A. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the ITAT's decision was justified based on correct legal interpretation and prior judgments. It affirmed that income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for adjustments of earlier expenses against subsequent income as application of income.
The High Court held that the provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation are applicable to charitable trusts, following established Supreme Court and High Court precedents. The court found that income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding allowing carry-forward of expenditure from earlier years to be set off against subsequent income was justified. This was based on the principle that income of a charitable trust should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for adjustments of expenses incurred in earlier years against subsequent income.
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the carry forward of deficits. This decision was based on established High Court and Supreme Court judgments regarding the computation of income for charitable trusts on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the controversy regarding carry forward of deficits and depreciation for charitable trusts is settled by previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments. These judgments allow for the computation of income on commercial principles, including depreciation and carry forward of expenses.
The High Court held that depreciation is allowable on assets used for charitable purposes, even if their cost was claimed as application of income. It also affirmed that set-off of losses from earlier years against subsequent income is permissible for charitable trusts, based on commercial principles.
The High Court held that the provisions relating to set-off of losses and depreciation are applicable to charitable trusts, and depreciation can be claimed even if the asset's cost was previously claimed as application of income. This is based on commercial principles and established judicial precedents.
The High Court held that the Tribunal's decision to allow the set-off of carry forward deficits was justified. This was based on the principle that income of charitable trusts should be computed on commercial principles, allowing for normal depreciation and adjustment of expenses from earlier years.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparables in transfer pricing do not raise substantial questions of law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
The High Court held that the assessee should not be deprived of arguing their claim on merits due to the retrospective amendment of tax laws. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the ITAT to consider the cross-objections on their merits.
The High Court held that appeals concerning the selection of comparable companies and filters applied in transfer pricing do not give rise to substantial questions of law. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the impugned notice-cum-order was issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the recovery under the notice could not be sustained.
The High Court held that the issue regarding exclusion of expenses from turnover for Section 10A benefits is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in HCL Technologies Ltd. The Court also noted that appeals concerning the selection of comparables and filters do not raise substantial questions of law.
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. HCL Technologies Ltd., expenses excluded from export turnover must also be excluded from total turnover for Section 10A computation.