CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

330 ITR 16High Court2011#942 most cited

What is CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli authority for?

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

113

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Market Committee · Pipli · 330 ITR 16 · depreciation charitable trust · Section 11 application of income · funds applied for charitable objects · allowability of depreciation for trusts · Section 11(6) prospective · prior to AY 2015-16 · Section 10(23C) depreciation · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 14Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)(a)mlisection 2(15)section 10(23c)put to use

Judgments citing CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2516/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…the Ld. AO is inapplicable to a situation where, depreciation is claimed by a charitable trust in determining percentage of funds applied for the purposes of charitable objects as held by the Hon'ble P & H High Court in CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has taken notice of sub- section(6) of section 11 inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 which has now put restriction on claim of depreciation. The amendment is only prospective applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent years and not to case of the assessee in which AY involved is 2012-13. We…

M/S SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARKS OF INDIA.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2415/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…the Ld. AO is inapplicable to a situation where, depreciation is claimed by a charitable trust in determining percentage of funds applied for the purposes of charitable objects as held by the Hon'ble P & H High Court in CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has taken notice of sub- section(6) of section 11 inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1.4.2015 which has now put restriction on claim of depreciation. The amendment is only prospective applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent years and not to case of the assessee in which AY involved is 2012-13. We…

DCIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7074/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 2(15)

…type, as rightly distinguished by the CIT(Appeals).” 22. The above view is also supported by ‘CIT vs. Tiny Tots Educational Society’, 330 ITR 21 (P&H), ‘CIT vs. Shri Gujrati Samaj (Regd.)’, (2012) 349 ITR 559 (MP) and ‘CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli’, (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H). 6 I.T.A.No.7074/Del/2018 23. In view of the above settled position of law, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject ground nos. 2 and 3.” 11. Further from the copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 21.09.2016 in assessee’s own case, ITA No. 545/Del/2016, we also note that the appeal of the Revenue against the order of…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA vs. INTEGRATED EDUCATION & RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING & MAN

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/276/2017HC Calcutta28 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 28Th July, 2022 Appearance : Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Dwip Raj Basu, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1St June, 2016, Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita No. 620/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration. I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Tribunal Erred In Law In Not Considering That Allowing Depreciation In Respect Of A Depreciable Asset For Which The Assessee

Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…of various High Courts and in particular, the decision in the case of CIT Vs. SOCIETY OF SISTERS OF ANNE.; 146 ITR 28 (Kar.); CIT Vs. TINY TOTS EDUCATION SOCIETY, (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H), which followed the decision in CIT Vs. MARKET COMMITTEE, PIPLI (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H), as also the decision of this Court in JYOTIRMAI CLUB, ITA No. 647 of 2004 dated 10th November, 2014. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. RCAO BAHADUR CALAVALA CUNNAN CHETTY CHARITIES, (1982) ITR 485 (Mad.) The CIT did not agree with the stand taken by the assessee, primary on the ground that intention of the legi…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…I (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applicable in the present context. The said decision has been distinguished in the below referred decisions:  Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No.220/Bang/ 2011, ITAT- Bangalore Bench;  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (Punjab & Haryana) (HC); 9.5 Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 has amended section 11 by way of insertion of sub-section (6). Section 11(6) reads as under: (6) In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, IT…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 578/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…nguished by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid decisions. 21. The issue raised by the revenue in the ground of appeal is thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (P&H). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering several decisions on that issue and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), came to the conclusion that depreciation is allowable on capital assets on the income of the charitable trust for determining the quantum of funds which have to be…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 577/BANG/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…nguished by the Hon'ble Court in the aforesaid decisions. 21. The issue raised by the revenue in the ground of appeal is thus no longer res integra and has been decided by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli, 330 ITR 16 (P&H). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court after considering several decisions on that issue and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra), came to the conclusion that depreciation is allowable on capital assets on the income of the charitable trust for determining the quantum of funds which have to be…

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Annamalai S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(6)Section 2(15)

…of CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne 146 ITR 28 (Kar). It was held in CIT vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H) , following CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli 8 ITA No.718/Bang/2013. M/s.Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P&H) : (2011) 238 CTR (P&H) 103 that depreciation can be claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purpose of charitable objects. Claim for depreciation will not amount to double benefit. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. 199 ITR 43 (SC) have been referred to and dis…

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI vs. M/S EDUCATIONAL TRUST OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for assessment

ITA 1590/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1589 & 1590/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Educational Trust Of (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Seventh Day Adventists Aayakar Bhavan Annex, 3Rd Floor Aaa 148, Third Avenue Chennai-600 034. Anna Nagar West. Chennai-600 040. Pan: Aaate 0547Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr.R.M.Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: 04.02.2021
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ters & St-Anne (146 JTR 28); Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs Raipur Pallottine Society (180 JTR 579); Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sheth Manilal rachhnoddasVishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education society (330 ITR 21); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Siliuguri Regulated Market Committee (358 ITR 51). In addition the Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 and the Karnataka High Court in…

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI vs. M/S EDUCATIONAL TRUST OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for assessment

ITA 1589/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1589 & 1590/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Educational Trust Of (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Seventh Day Adventists Aayakar Bhavan Annex, 3Rd Floor Aaa 148, Third Avenue Chennai-600 034. Anna Nagar West. Chennai-600 040. Pan: Aaate 0547Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr.R.M.Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: 04.02.2021
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ters & St-Anne (146 JTR 28); Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs Raipur Pallottine Society (180 JTR 579); Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Sheth Manilal rachhnoddasVishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education society (330 ITR 21); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Siliuguri Regulated Market Committee (358 ITR 51). In addition the Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 and the Karnataka High Court in…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: None
Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2110/DEL/2017 Assessment Year 2012-13 ACIT, v. India Trade Promotion Circle-1(1), Organization Pragati New Delhi. Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAT12955C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr.D.R. Respondent by: None Date of hearing: 12 01 2021 Date of pronouncement: 22 01 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 25.01.2017, passed…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE- 1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1668/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant M/S. Hubli Dharwad Urban Commissioner Of Development Authority, Income Tax Vs. Navanagar, (Exemptions), Hubbali. Circle – 1, Pan: Aaalh0053J Mangaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gangadhar .J.M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar .J.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 10(2)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 251(1)(a)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…ous courts have held that, allowing depreciation on assets used in business will not amount to double deduction. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court was distinguished by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Market Committee, Pip [2011] 330 ITR 16 (P&H). The Hon. High Court observed that :- "In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentag…

THE DDIT (EXEMP.), AHMEDABAD vs. ADARSH FOUNDATION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1858/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O. P Meena & Ms. Madhumita Royआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1858/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम Deputy Director Of Income Tax Adarsh Foundation, Vs. (Exemption), Ahmedabad C/O Sal Hospital & Medical Institution, Opp. Doordarshan Tower, Drive- In-Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Pan:Aaa Ta2 111 J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 32

…van Trust 198 ITR 598 (Guj) has allowed the claim of depreciation of trust. Similarly in following cases CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 (Bom), CIT vs. Raipur Pallotine Society 180 ITR 579 (MP) and CIT vs. Market Committee Pipli 330 ITR 16 (P & H) the claim of depreciation trust has been held as allowable. 18. Considering these facts and placing reliance on the aforesaid case laws and following decision of ITAT ‘C’ Bench, Ahmedabad decision in the case of Adharshila Education & Charitable Trust in ITA No. 1443/Ahd/2008, A.Y. 2005-06 & 810/Ahd/2009, A.Y. 2006-07, the CIT(A) has a…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG., NEW DELHI

ITA 3359/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1919/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.3359/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) ITA No.2508/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) ADIT (E), Inv. Circle (1), vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AAATI2955C) ITA No.3135/Del./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) JDIT (E), Range 1, vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation, New Delhi. Pragati Bhawan, Pragati Maidan, New Delhi –…

Showing 1–20 of 113 · Page 1 of 6

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli (330 ITR 16) — Cited in 113 Judgments | BharatTax