How many judgments cite CIT v. Gujrati Samaj?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gujrati Samaj (349 ITR 559), spanning 2015 to 2024.

CIT v. Gujrati Samaj

349 ITR 559High Court2012#2478 most cited

What is CIT v. Gujrati Samaj authority for?

Expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in an earlier year can be set off against income of the current year as application of income. Excess expenditure by a trust can be set off against its income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gujrati Samaj · section 13(1)(c)(ii) · section 11(1)(a) · application of income · charitable trust · excess expenditure · set off

Also reported as

213 Taxmann 182

Issues it is cited on

section 13(1)(c)(ii)section 158a section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)interest free advances section 13(1)application of income section 260a section 11(1)(a)section 158 section 201 search assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Gujrati Samaj

M/S H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 456/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 2(15)Section 28

…H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust and others Before Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’ble Judicial Member and Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’ble Accountant Member A.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal PAN – AAATH 3738 E ::: Appellant Vs ACIT-2(1), Bhopal ::: Respondent A.Y. 2011-12 Hai Hay Kshetriya Education Society, Bhopal PAN – AAAAH 1557 N ::: Appellant Vs ACIT-2(1), Bhopal ::: Respondent A.Y. 2011-12 Jai Narain Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal PAN – AAAAJ 2542 F ::: Appellant Vs ACIT-2(1), Bhopal ::: Respondent H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust and others A.Y. 2011-12 Rishiraj Memorial Education & Welfare Society, Bhopal PAN – AA…

M/S Jai Narain Shiksha Samiti, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

Appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 455/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Hon’Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon’Blea.Y. 2011-12 H.K. Kalchuri Education Trust, Bhopal Pan – Aaath 3738 E ::: Appellant

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 2(15)Section 28

Premeshwar Creations P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 6852/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Permeshwar Creations Dcit-8(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.209, बनाम/ Plot No.52, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Midc Marol, M.K. Road, Andheri(E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcp3517F

Section 32

…herefore, following the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Poddar Cements Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), ii. CIT vs Daudayal Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) (2006) 282 ITR 132 (Guj.). iii. CIT vs Crown Products (2008) 304 ITR 106 (Guj.) iv. CIT vs Gujarati Samaj (2012) 349 ITR 559 (MP). We are of the view that depreciation on the applicable rates, during the relevant time, has to be allowed to the assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that these motor cars were not used for business purposes of the assessee company or used by the Directors for their personal purposes. Merely because, the registration was done in the…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. Pearey Lal Bhawan Association, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: SH. R.M. MEHTA, CAFor Respondent: SH. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 70

…Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20 (Mad) 2000 (iv) Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. (v) CIT vs. Institute of Banking, 264 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003 . (vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, 197 Taxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP) 2012 4.3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that even though there is no merit in the submissions of the assessee as there is no specific provisions u/s 11, 12, 12A, 12AA & 13 for allowing the benefit of carry forward or adjustment of deficit or loss etc. but keeping in view the decisions of the v…

M/S Sevasadan Orphanage and Training Institute, Bangalore vs. DDIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S Sevasadan Orphanage & Training Institute, #347, Sarjapur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Circle – 17(2), Bangalore. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S Venkatesan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rukmani Attri, JCIT

Section 11(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Sevasadan Orphanage and Training Institute, #347, Sarjapur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Circle – 17(2), Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant by : Shri S Venkatesan, C.A Respondent by : Smt. Rukmani Attri, JCIT Date of Hearing : 09-11-2015 Date of Pronouncement : 10-11 -2015 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appeal is filed by the assessee. The appeal is directed…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Academy of General Education, Manipal

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 636/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…itable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A), following the decisions rendered in the case of St.Ann’s Convent 349 ITR 559 (Karn) and Dr.T.M.A. Pal Foundation, Manipal in ITA No. 481 to 485/Bangh/2009 dated 16.2.2010 held that the claim of the Assessee for depreciation has to be allowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR, who relied on the order…

DDIT, Bangalore vs. Jyothy Charitable Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 522/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Babu Prasad, Advocate

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…itable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A), following the decisions rendered in the case of St.Ann’s Convent 349 ITR 559 (Karn) and Dr.T.M.A. Pai Foundation, Manipal in ITA No. 481 to 485/Bang/2009 dated 16.2.2010 held that the claim of the Assessee for depreciation has to be allowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR, who relied on the order o…