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

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Vishwachetan Foundation, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1040/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Khincha, C.A

Section 11Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)(a)Section 28

…e deduction which is not admissible. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee by 4 following the various decisions including the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selections 264 ITR 110 (Bom) as well as the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28. We find that this issue is now settled in favour of the assessee by a series of decisions by the High Courts as well as this Tribunal. In a recent decision in the case of M/s. Moogambigai Charitable and Educa…

M/S. Lord Jesus Education Society, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1648/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 12ASection 142(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1648/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S LORD JESUS EDUCATION VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), GURGAON SOCIETY, VIJAY PARK, BEHIND LAXMI BAZAR, GURGAON, HARYANA (AAABL0007G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA Department by : None Date of Hearing : 14-07-2016 Date of Order : 02-08-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM Assessee has filed this Appeal against the impugned Order dated 21.1.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon relevant to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1.…

I.T.O. (E)(I) (1), Mumbai vs. Chetna, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and cross-objection are allowed, and the Revenue appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6762/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Sanjay Arora, Am The Income Tax Officer (E), Vs. Chetna, Survey No.341 Ward 1 (1), Room No.505, Government Colony, Bandra (E), 5Th Piramal Chambers, Floor, Mumbai 400 052 Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Pan:Aaatc 3012A .. Appellant Respondent

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

…, becomes academic in view of the assessee’s entire income (other than the rental income supra) being exempt u/s. 10(23C)(vi). There is under the circumstances no scope for application of the decision in CIT vs. Institute of Ranking Personnel Selection [2003] 264 ITR 110 (Bom). The non-exempt income would stand to be brought to tax. We decide accordingly. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeal and cross-objection are allowed, and the Revenue appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/07/2016. (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 29/07/2016 Lakshmikanta Deka/Sr.…

ITO, Mangalore vs. Dr. U. Krishna Muniyal Memorial Trust, Manipal

In the result, the CO by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 140/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Gurunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

…4 of 13 (iii) ACIT v. Academy of General Education in ITA No.481 to 485/Bang/2009, order dated 16.2.2010 for AYs 2002-03 to 2006-07. 7. We further note that this issue is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Institute of Banking, 264 ITR 110 (Bom) and by following the said decision, the coordinate Bench of this Tri vide its order dated 8.7.2015 in the case of M/s. Amara Prema Charitable Society v. DDIT(E) in ITA No.354/Bang/2015 has held in paras 5 & 6 as under:- “5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that similar issue had arisen before the T…

ACIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Dawat-E-Hadiyah, Mumbai

ITA 4333/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit(E)-I(1), M/S. Dawat-E-Hadiyah, R.No.504, Piramal Chambers, Badri Mahal, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Parel, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 12 Mumbai – 300 009 Pan: Aaatd1489N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri F.B. Andhyarujina, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Alok Johari, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri F.B. Andhyarujina, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johari, D.R

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12A

…for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2011-12. Both the issues came under consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal while relying upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court including that of “CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection” (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bombay) and “DIT (E) vs. M/s. Najam Baug Trust” ITA No.60 of 2013 vide order dated 14.01.15 has decided both the issues in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has noted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection” (supra) has held that a trust can claim deprecation on assets, even if, cost…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust

In the result, all the appeals are

ITA/384/2016HC Karnataka28 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 260Section 263

…4. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has placed reliance on the following Judgments: [1] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD., [(2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC)] [2] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING [(2003) 264 ITR 110] [3] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU-I vs. RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES [1982) ITR 485 (MAD)] [4] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MARKET COMMITTEE PIPLI [(2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 8 [5] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANNE [(1984) 39 CTR (KAR) 9] [6] DIRECT…

Asst DIT (E) II(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7030/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7030/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बनधम/ Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E), Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal, Ii(2), Room No.507, 5Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Bhaidas Hall, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Bhakti Vadant Swami Marg, Lalbaug, Vile Pare –West, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400056 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabts8228H

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…sets. The latter is depreciation and it is permissible deduction considering the use of the assets. This has been clarified repeatedly by this Court. If any reference is required then the case of CIT v. Institution of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [2003] 264 ITR 110/131 Taxman 386 (Bom.) is enough. 7. Going by the law laid down by this Court, we are of the opinion that that even the question No.4 in the paper-book cannot be termed as substantial question of law. The appeal thus has no merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.” 6 2704/Mum/2014 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the revenue filed a…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Samaj Ghatkopar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3654/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Ddit (E)- 1(1), Maharashtra Samaj Ghatkoper, R.No. 504, Piramal Chambers, Plot No. 17, Tilak Road, 5Th Floor, Parel, Ghatkoper (East), Vs. Mumbai- 400012. Mumbai-400077. Pan: Aaatm4324P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram(Sr. Counsel)For Respondent: Smt. Vinita Menon (DR)

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)

…ed the assessee to explain the allowability of the claim of depreciation of Rs. 31,58,126/-, the assessee submitted its reply and contended that depreciation is allowable expenditure in view of the judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110 (Bom). The contention of assessee was not accepted by AO and depreciation was disallowed. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and succeeded therein. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have heard Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue and Authorise…

National Society for Equal Opportunities for the Handicapped India, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) II(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7740/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoi.T.A. No.7740/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) National Society For Equal फनाभ/ Adit (E)-Ii(2), R.No.509, 5 Th Floor, Piramal Opportunities For The Vs. Handicapped India, Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Postal Colony Rd, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 012. Mumbai – 400 071. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaatno534C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Mandar Vaidya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Aarsi Prasad, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, JCIT

…see mentioned that the allowability of set off of the brought forward losses against the excess income of the current year is a covered issue in view of the binding judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110). The Authorities below made an attempt to distinguish the said judgment and denied the benefit to the assessee. On these facts, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the cited judgment in the case of Institute of Banking (supra) and read out the ratio of the said judgment that excess expenditure in prior years can be set off again…

ADIT (E) II(1), Mumbai vs. Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is hereby dismissed

ITA 6853/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri G.S. Pannuassessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Director Of Income-Tax M/S. Jaslok Hospital & (Exemption)-Ii(1), Research Centre, 507, 5Th Floor, 15, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Piramal Chambers Vs. Mumbai – 400 026 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaaaj 0028Q M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Perdiwalla, A.R. & Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Asghar Jain V.P, D.R

Section 11

…s right in upholding the order of the Id. CIT(A) whereby the Id. CIT(A) allowed the claim of depreciation of Rs 17,03,87,827/-, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Services reported at 264 ITR 110 (Bom) ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments in the case of Escorts Ltd vs. Union of India (199 ITP 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. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Society of the Servant of the Holy Spirit, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit(Exemption)-2(1), Society Of The Servant Of The 5Th Floor, Holy Spirit, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Holy Spirit Hospital, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400092 Pan. No. Aaaas0148J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 256(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"नी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT(Exemption)-2(1), Society of the Servant of the 5th Floor, Holy Spirit, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Holy Spirit Hospital, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400092 PAN. No. AAAAS0148J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Smt. N.V. Nadkarni-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर स…

ITO (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. Dr..D.Y Patil Sports Academy, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6879/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…een allowed as application of income. 2.3. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and following the decision from Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Institute of Banking Personal (264 ITR 110) (Bom.), CIT vs Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Mandal (211 ITR 293)(Gujarat) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal. 2.4. Before coming to any conclusion and the facts available on record, we find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court in the case of Institute of Banking Person…

M/S Integrated Education Research Centre for Engineering and Management, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

ITA 620/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Snehotpal Datta, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…Research Centre for Engineering & Management. claim of depreciation is to be allowed even if the cost of the asset is treated as application. In that case tile following judgments were referred: i.ClT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection reported in 264 ITR 110 {Mumbai} [2004] ii. CIT Vs. Market Committee, Pipli reported in 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) [2011 ] iii. CIT vs. Trustee of H.E.H. Nizam's Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust reported in 127 ITR 378 (A.P.) [1981] iv. ClT vs. Rcao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities reported in [1982) 135 ITR 485 [Mad} v. ClT vs. Bhoruka Public Welfare T…

DDIT (E) I (2), Mumbai vs. Sayaji U-Ba Khin Memorial Trust, Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2797/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1708/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial The Asstt. Director Of बनाम/ Trust Income Tax (Exempt) 1(2) Vs. 2Nd Floor, Green House, Room No.504, Green Street, Fort, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400023 Parel, Mumbai - 400012 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2797/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) The Asstt. Director Of Sayaji-U-Ba Khin Memorial बनाम/ Income Tax (Exempt) 1(2) Trust Vs. Room No.504, 2Nd Floor, Green House, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Green Street, Fort, Parel, Mumbai-400023 Mumbai - 400012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatt0114E

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & RajnikantFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147

…Act. No doubt with regard to the capital expenditure and revenue expenditure the claim has duly been mentioned by the assessee in the return. It can be viewed in accordance with law. How it can be escaped assessment is not understandable. Reliance placed upon 264 ITR 110. Moreover, it also came into notice that the details of the capital expenditure and revenue expenditure has duly been placed before Assessing Officer which are also on the file at page 36 to 45 of the paper book. So far as A.Y. 2005-06 the claim regarding expenditure of Rs.11,00,000/- is concerned, the same has been misappropriate by the officia…

Sayaji-U Ba Khin Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (E) 1(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed and appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1708/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth & RajnikantFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. Vishwachetan Foundation, Hubli

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

ITA 957/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raothe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Exemption), Circle-1, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. Vishwachetan Foundation Ibmr, 1St Main, Jaynagar, Opp: Kims, Hubbali. Appellant By : Shri S Nambirajan, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Naginchand Khincha, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17-5-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-5-2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S Nambirajan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha, CA

Section 11Section 148Section 28Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of this Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of DIT(E) Vs GKR Charities and in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selections 264 ITR 110. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard learned DR as well as learned AR and considered the relevant material on record. The learned AR of the assessee has pointed out that this issue is now covered by the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts as well as Tribunal including the latest de…

The Music Academy Madras, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA 1098/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1098/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Music Academy Madras, The Deputy Director Of Income Tax No.168 (Old No.306), Ttk Road, V. (Exemptions), Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. Chennai - 600 034 . Pan : Aaatt 0256 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…3 (Cal) 5. CIT v. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) 6. CIT v. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj) Vishram Bhavan Trust 7. CIT v. Raipur Pallottine Society (1989) 180 ITR 579 (MP) 8. CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom) Selection 9. DIT(E) v. Framjee Cawasjee (1993) 109 CTR (Bom) 463 Institute 17 I.T.A. No.1098/Mds/15 10. DDIT v. Lakshmi Saraswathi Educational Trust Chennai ITAT 11. Apollo Hospitals Educational Trust v. DCIT Chennai ITAT 12. Services Association of Seventh Day ITA No.1853/Mds/2011 – Adventists Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Chennai ITAT 13. Services…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

ITTA/346/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ACIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mandke Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3837/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Me.

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas JadhavFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra B. Sanghavi

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ncome in year of purchase and second by way of the claim of depreciation. This claim has since been allowed by the CIT(Appeals) following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Section, 264 ITR 110 (Bom). This action of the CIT(Appeals) has been disputed by the Revenue before me. 4. At the time of hearing , Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue quite fairly pointed out that the decision of the CIT(Appeals) was based on the binding judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Institute of Banking Personnel Sele…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Karnataka Reddy Janasangha

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/56/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

…Learned counsel appearing for the assessee has placed reliance on the following Judgments: [1] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD., [(2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC)] [2] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. INSTITUTE OF BANKING [(2003) 264 ITR 110] [3] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TAMIL NADU-I vs. RAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES [1982) ITR 485 (MAD)] 14 [4] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. MARKET COMMITTEE PIPLI [(2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 [5] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF ST. ANNE [(1984) 39 CTR (KAR) 9] [6] DIRECTOR OF INC…