Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 11, Section 12A, Section 147, Section 11(1)(a), Section 11(6).

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection?

398 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), spanning 2012 to 2026.

264 ITR 110High Court2003#181 most cited

What is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection authority for?

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

398

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,576 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection · Section 11 · Section 11(1) · depreciation allowance for trusts · application of income · capital expenditure trusts · carry forward of deficit · charitable trust exemption · computing trust income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 11 Section 12A Section 147 Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12 Section 13(8)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(1)(a)section 11(1)application of income capital expenditure section 12a section 11 section 10 section 12 previous year section 13 person section 25

Judgments citing CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection

DCIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Indo Italian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3373/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3373/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1(1), Indo Italian Chambers Of Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Commerce & Industry, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 502, Bengal Chemicals Compound, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct 1939 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. P. Acharya

For Appellant: Ms. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Acharya

…the earlier years/current year is required to be carried forward to the subsequent years. On perusal of the facts I find that the case of appellant is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon. Jurisdictional High Court has observed as under - ............"5. Now coming to question No. 3, the point which arises for consideration is: whether excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against the income of the subsequent year and whether such adjustment should be treated as application of income in subsequ…

DCIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Andheri Gujrati Jain Sangh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as announced in the court in the presence of the learned DR on the conclusion of hearing on 1st November, 2017

ITA 5434/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: None

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…observing that loss/deficit cannot be determined while computing income u/s 11 of the Act. The CIT(A) has since allowed the claim of the assessee following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110 (Bom). 5. Before us, the plea of the Department is that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (supra) has not been accepted by the Department on merits. So, however there is no controversion by the Revenue to the fact that the decision of the CIT(A) is in line with the judgment of t…

Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) III, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1538/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.Nandita S.Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 2(45)

…t could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. 11. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking (2003) 264 ITR 110 High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to allow depreciation on the assets, the cost of which had been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 in the past years. 12. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in the case of CIT Vs Society of the Sisters of SL Anne (1984) 146…

ITO (Exemption)-2(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Parmeshwaridevi Gordhandas Garodia Charitable Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5342/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshkumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Rahuk Hakani

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…d in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction 5 Parmeshwaridevi Gordhandas Garodia Charitable Trust cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction? (b) Whet…

ITO (E) - 2(2), Mumbai vs. Punjab Kesari Charitable Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5279/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshkumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar Gupta

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to 5 Punjab Kesari Charitable Trust allow the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and…

ITO (E) - 2(1), Mumbai vs. Nanikram Menghraj Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as announced in the court in the presence of both the parties on the conclusion of hearing on 31st October, 2017

ITA 5278/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri M.A. Gohel

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

ITO (E) - 2(1), Mumbai vs. Moriswala Manzil Musafirkhana, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as announced in the court in the presence of both the parties on the conclusion of hearing on 31st October, 2017

ITA 5277/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Keshav B Bhujle

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

ACIT (Exemption) - 1(1), Mumbai vs. Gujrat Research Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-1(1) Gujrat Research Society Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Dr. Madhuri Shah Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Campus, Ram Krishna Mumbai-400012. Mission Marg, Mumbai-400052. Pan No. Aaatb1718N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Rupam J. Shukla, Ar Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Rupam J. Shukla, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32

…itable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. Depreciation has been held to be an application of income in the following judgments: i. CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H). Gujrat Research Society 4 iii. CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H). iv. DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission (2012) Income Tax Review – Sept – P. 83 (Del). v. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society vs. Asst. DIT (2012) 18 Taxmann.com 104 (ITAT-Del). vi. CIT…

DCIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Prayagdham Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5110/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: None

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…d in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction?” stands on the same footing as is being canvassed before us in th…

DCIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Prayagdham Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5109/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: None

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shree Manav Seva Sangh, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4448/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2009-10 Ito (Exemptions)-2(3), Vs. Shree Manav Seva Sangh Mumbai (Appellant) 255/257, Sion Main Road West, Mumbai 400 022 (Respondent) Pan : Aaats1440G Co No. 258/Mum/2017 : A.Y : 2009-10 (In Ita No. 4448/Mum/2016)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh R. Shah

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…d in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) to allow the claim of depreciation relying on the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v/s. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported in 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court 4 judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. V/s. Union of India (199 ITR 43) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that double deduction cannot be presumed if the same is not specifically provided by law, in addition to normal deduction? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case a…

DCIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Dr G.D. Pol Foundation, Mumbai

ITA 7664/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7664/M/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit (E)1(1) बिधम/ Dr. G.D. Pol Foundation Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, 105, B.K.K. Tower, Parel Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Tank Rd, Parel Mumbai. Mumbai - 400012 Pin:400012 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Abqpd9420J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 127Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 32

…lection 264 ITR 110. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. The CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the finding of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 which is binding upon us. No law contrary to the said law has been produced by the revenue before us. No material of any kind came into notice to which it can be assumed by the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable. Since, the matter of controversy has been adjudicated by the CIT(A) on the basis of the finding of the jurisdictional High Court…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Samundra Institute of Marine Studies Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 10(22)Section 11Section 32

…Bench, ground No. 1 is dismissed. 7. The issue relating to the claim of depreciation has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Services 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'bie High Court has inter alia held as under: "In all such cases, section 32 of the Income-tax Act providing for depreciation for computation of income derived from business or profession is not applicable. However, the income of the trust is required to be computed under section 11 on commercial principles after providing for all…

ACIT-(E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1516/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, No.17, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 052. … Respondent Pan:Aaatb 0895 L

For Appellant: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Muralidhar, H, Advocate

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, No.17, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 052. … Respondent PAN:AAATB 0895 L Appellant by : Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR) Respondent by : Shri Muralidhar, H, Advocate. Date of hearing : 09/10/2017 Date of pronouncement : 25/10/2017 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of the Commissioner of…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. The Executive Board of the Methodist Church in India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 5442/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of The Executive Board Of The Income-Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Methodist Church In India, 510, 5Th Floor, 1, Prospect Chambers, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Ground Floor, 313, D.N. Road, Mumbai - 400012 Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaatt5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Shankar K. Jalgar(Ar) Date Of Hearing: 21/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Shankar K. Jalgar(AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)

…rised representative of the assessee submitted that the deficit of Rs. 1,87, 32, 411/– is being carried forward which can be set of against the surplus of subsequent year as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Institute of banking 264 ITR 110 (Bom). However, the AO held that deficit of Rs. 1,87, 32,411/– cannot be carried forward and computed the income of the assessee as under: Gross income as per computation RS 23, 94, 22, 832/– Less 15% accumulation u/s11(1)(a) RS 3, 59, 13, 425/- Less expenditure on the object of the trust RS 22, 22, 41, 818/- Taxable income NIL 3. Aggrieved by…

ITO (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mandar Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5341/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer M/S. Mandar Education (E)2(1), R. No.512, Society, 5Th Flr., Piramal Chambers, B-91-93, Paschim Lalbaug, Vs. Apartment, Mumbai – 400 028 Opp. Kirti College, R.D. Road, Dadar, Mumbai-400 028 Pan: Aaatm 5371Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble Tribunal vide its order No.3656/Mum/2013 dated 07.05.2015. While deciding the issue, the Hon'ble ITAT has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Services, 264 ITR 110 (Born) and CIT vs. Market Committee Peepli, 330 ITR 16 (P & H). Hence respectfully following the decision of the ITAT in assessee's own case, the AO is directed to allow the claim of depreciation in respect of the impugned assets for the A.Y.2011- 12. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find th…

DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mandke Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4108/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Cit (Exemptions)-2(1), Mandke Foundation बनाम/ Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Rao Saheb Achutrao Patwardhan Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Marg, Four Bunglows, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aatm 4557 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Sanghavi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.03.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Id.Cit(A) Erred In Aliening The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing Depreciation On Fixed Assets Of Rs.60,92,65,396/- In Contravention Of The Decision Of Escorts

For Appellant: Shri N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi

Section 11Section 32

…d 4 Dy. CIT (Exemptions) vs. Mandke Foundation as application of income u/s. 11. In this regard I find that the issue is directly covered in appellant's favour by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under: "4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income f…

DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Santacruz Residents Association, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4103/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Cit (Exemptions)-2(1), The Santacruz Residents Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Association बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bcj Hospital & Asha Parekh Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Research Centre, Corner Of S. V. Vs. Road, Tilak Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaats 8214 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri/Smt. N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.03.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing Depreciation On Fixed Assets Of Rs.73,31,8077- In Contravention Of The Decision Of Escorts Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri/Smt. N. HemalathaFor Respondent: None

Section 11Section 32

…ber of judgments, depreciation had been allowed as application of income u/s. 11. In this regard I find that the issue is directly covered in appellant's favour by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under : 4 Dy. CIT (Exemptions) vs. The Santacruz Residents Association "4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTP. 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts w…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Kutchi Kadva Ptidar Gnyati Trust Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3308/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito (E) 2 (3) Vs. Kutchi Kadva Patidar R.No.513, Gnyati Trust Fund Piramal Chamber, Patidar Wadi, Lbs Marg Lalbaug, Lower Parel Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 086 Pan/Gir No. Aacts0647K Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…r of judgments, depreciation had been allowed as application of income u/s. 11. In this regard I find that the issue is directly covered in appellant's favour by the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking - Personnel 264 ITR 110 wherein the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:- "4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 884/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshhi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/s B S & G Foundation, 502, 2nd Floor, 5th ‘C’ Main, 5th Cross, 2nd Block, HRBR Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent PAN – AAATB6131D. Appellant by : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, JCIT Respondent by : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by Revenue is directed against the…