264 ITR 119 (Bom) CIT vs Marketing Committee, Pipli 330 ITR 16( P& H) CIT v. Tiny Tots Educational Society

73 ITR 91High Court#21443 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing 264 ITR 119 (Bom) CIT vs Marketing Committee, Pipli 330 ITR 16( P& H) CIT v. Tiny Tots Educational Society

CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 1475/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

…has been already allowed as application of income u/s.11 in the past years CIT vs. Institute of Banking 264 ITR 119 (Bom) CIT vs Marketing Committee, Pipli 330 ITR 16( P& H) CIT vs Tiny Tots Educational Society 330 ITR 21 (P&H) CIT vs Vishwa Jagriti Mission 73 ITR 91 (Del) ITA No.1474 & 1475/16 :- 3 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation of an amount of `18,32,40,101/- and `18,85,58,300/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 and for A.Y. 2011-12 respectively but the A.O was of the view that the assessee had claimed full cost of additions to assets as application of income in the earli…

CHETTINAD ACADEMY OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed

ITA 1474/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

RAJA MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1473/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

…has been already allowed as application of income u/s.11 in the past years CIT vs. Institute of Banking 264 ITR 119 (Bom) CIT vs Marketing Committee, Pipli 330 ITR 16( P& H) CIT vs Tiny Tots Educational Society 330 ITR 21 (P&H) CIT vs Vishwa Jagriti Mission 73 ITR 91 (Del) ITA Nos.1472 & 1473/Mds./16 :- 3 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation of an amount of `290,67,043/- and `2,90,67,044/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and for A.Y. 2012-13 respectively but the A.O was of the view that the assessee had claimed full cost of additions to assets as application of income in the ea…

RAJA MUTHIAH CHETTIAR CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DDIT, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed

ITA 1472/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.K.Ravi, JCIT,DR

Section 11Section 14Section 6

…has been already allowed as application of income u/s.11 in the past years CIT vs. Institute of Banking 264 ITR 119 (Bom) CIT vs Marketing Committee, Pipli 330 ITR 16( P& H) CIT vs Tiny Tots Educational Society 330 ITR 21 (P&H) CIT vs Vishwa Jagriti Mission 73 ITR 91 (Del) ITA Nos.1472 & 1473/Mds./16 :- 3 -: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed depreciation of an amount of `290,67,043/- and `2,90,67,044/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 and for A.Y. 2012-13 respectively but the A.O was of the view that the assessee had claimed full cost of additions to assets as application of income in the ea…