Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10, Section 10(23C)(iiiad), Section 11, Section 11(6), Section 12A, Section 13(2).

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463)

Q: What is Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute authority for?

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

Q: How many judgments cite Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute?

191 judgments on BharatTax cite Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463), spanning 2012 to 2025.

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/s Barrows Blue Bells School v. The Income Tax Officer Civil Line (Exemption) Bahraich Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAATB7151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R. O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders passed by the Learned Commiss…

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 M/s Barrows Blue Bells School v. The Income Tax Officer Civil Line (Exemption) Bahraich Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAATB7151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R. O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: These three appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the respective orders passed by the Learned Commiss…

KAMAL CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(3), , MUMBAI

ITA 1575/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Kavita P. Kaushik

Section 10Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…f the assessee and against the Department. 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 5 Assessment Year 2012-2013 (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

VISWAMANAVA SAMAIKYATA SAMSAT,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 278/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2014-15) M/S. Viswamanava Samikyata Vs. Income Tax Officer Samsat, Guntur. (Exemptions), Pan: Aaatv 1597 P Guntur. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/04/2024 घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date Of : 28/05/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

…e Ld. CIT(A) as per the provisions of section 250(5) of the Act admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. FramjeeCawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom.) wherein it was held that “the Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of assets, what he really meant was that the amounts spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as application of income of the trust in the year in which the income was spent in ac…

SMT.SULOCHANADEVI SINGHANIA SCHOOL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (EXEM)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3713/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Dr Kishore Dhule- CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 28Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No. 3713/Mum/2023 for Assessment Year 2015-16 Smt. Sulochanadevi Singhania DCIT (EXEM)-2(1), School Trust, Mumbai Vs. 1st Floor, New Hind House, N M Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001. PAN AAATS2146P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Hitesh Trivedi Respondent By : Dr Kishore Dhule- CIT DR Date of Hearing :04.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.04.2024 O R D E R Per Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang: This appeal by t…

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 444/JPR/2023[2014- 15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

…than & Gujarati Foundation [ 402 ITR 441 ] where in the court held that 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 443/JPR/2023[2013- 14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

…than & Gujarati Foundation [ 402 ITR 441 ] where in the court held that 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 442/JPR/2023[2012- 13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

…than & Gujarati Foundation [ 402 ITR 441 ] where in the court held that 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 441/JPR/2023[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

…than & Gujarati Foundation [ 402 ITR 441 ] where in the court held that 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 440/JPR/2023[2006- 07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

…than & Gujarati Foundation [ 402 ITR 441 ] where in the court held that 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 424/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)&For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 24Section 253(3)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 424/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2010-11 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra cuke ITO, (Exemptions), Vs. VPO Bada, Padampura, Ward-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATS 5225 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A)& Ms. Ruchika Sogani (Adv.) jkt…

DCIT (E), MUMBAI vs. VIDYA VIKAS EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1609/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Anant PaiFor Respondent: Sh. Vranda U Matkarni – Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 250

…ved with the order of AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the office of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Mumbai. The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel (264 ITR 110), Director of Income Tax (E) Vs. Framejee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 5 ITA No. 1609 & 1608, C.O. No. 104 & 103/Mum/2022 Vidya Vikas Education Trust (Bom.), Director of Income Tax (E) Vs. Shri Vile Parle Kelavani Mandal [2015] 55 taxmann.com 288 and assessee’s own order for the A.Y. 2012-13 by the then CIT(A)-1, Mumbai vide order CIT(A)-I/IT/E-II(110)/2015-16, dated 17.11.2016 allowed the appeal of the assessee…

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 425/RJT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr.D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 250(6)Section 271Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E) - 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 1766/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 12ASection 143(3)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 143(3)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 168/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 167/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 166/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 165/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 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. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acqu…

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute

What is Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

KAMAL CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(3), , MUMBAI

VISWAMANAVA SAMAIKYATA SAMSAT,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), GUNTUR

SMT.SULOCHANADEVI SINGHANIA SCHOOL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (EXEM)-2(1), MUMBAI

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

DCIT (E), MUMBAI vs. VIDYA VIKAS EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

DR. SUBHASH PETHALJI CHAVDA AHIR KELVANI MANDAL,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-2,, RAJKOT

M P BIRLA FOUNDATION EDUCATION SOCIETY ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(E) - 1(1), KOLKATA

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD