Dharmodayam Co. v. ITO

154 ITD 574Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22751 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing Dharmodayam Co. v. ITO

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 103/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

…here need not be strict one to one nexus between the money spent for objects for which it was accumulated and the investment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Cochin bench of Tribunal in the case of Dharmodayam Co. Vs. ITO (2015)(154 ITD 574), where in it was held as under:- "13. It is also pertinent to note that the provisions of sec. 1 1(2)(a) talks about "income", whereas the provisions of sec. 1 1(2)(b) talks about the "money" so accumulated. The "money" available with the ITA No.1811/Bang/2018 & ITA 103/Bang/2021 Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore Page 5 of 10 assessee may…

Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1811/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

…here need not be strict one to one nexus between the money spent for objects for which it was accumulated and the investment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Cochin bench of Tribunal in the case of Dharmodayam Co. Vs. ITO (2015)(154 ITD 574), where in it was held as under:- "13. It is also pertinent to note that the provisions of sec. 1 1(2)(a) talks about "income", whereas the provisions of sec. 1 1(2)(b) talks about the "money" so accumulated. The "money" available with the ITA No.1811/Bang/2018 & ITA 103/Bang/2021 Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore Page 5 of 10 assessee may…

Sai Sathya Sai Central Trust, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Range-17, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1129/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 70

…here need not be strict one to one nexus between the money spent for objects for which it was accumulated and the investment. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by Cochin bench of Tribunal in the case of Dharmodayam Co. Vs. ITO (2015)(154 ITD 574), where in it was held as under:- “13. It is also pertinent to note that the provisions of sec. 11(2)(a) talks about "income", where as the provisions of sec. 11(2)(b) talks about the "money" so accumulated. The "money" available with the assessee may be pertaining to the current year's income or earlier year's income. Further, if the view taken…

Dharmodayam Co. v. ITO (154 ITD 574) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax