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.

Rural Education and Action for Liberation, Villupuram vs. ITO Ward 1, Villupuram

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

ITA 1244/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1246/Chny/2019. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Ragavendra Rao

Section 11Section 32

…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 acq…

Rural Education and Action for Liberation, Villupuram vs. ITO Ward 1, Villupuram

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

ITA 1243/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1246/Chny/2019. "नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Ragavendra Rao

Section 11Section 32

…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 acq…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 932/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 930/PUN/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 929/PUN/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “बी” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.929 to 932/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 to 2005-06 & 2008-09 Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Sector 26, Pradhikaran, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411044 …. PAN: AAALP0279Q Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Range – 10, Pune प्रत्याक्षेप सं./CO Nos.78 & 79/PUN/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessme…

ITO(Exemptions), Ahmedabad vs. Chamunda Foundation, Ahmedabad

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR &

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…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…

Chamunda Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT, Gandhinagar

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1071/AHD/2013[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR &

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…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…

Jt.CIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Dawat-E- Hadiyah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 2336/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2013-14

Section 1

…. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced 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 (Born). 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 Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been all…

M/S. Indian Institute of Management & Engineering Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3199/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR

Section 11Section 12A

…ajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona in Civil Appeal No.7186 of 2014 dated 13.12.2017 in favour of the assessee wherein view taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 has been affirmed by returning following findings :- “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 12 ITA No.3199/Del./2015 assessee was the Tru…

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

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5551/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanincome Tax Officer (E)-2(3), M/S Shree Manav Seva Sangh Room No.513, 5Th Floor, 255/257, Sion Main Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Soin (West), Mumbai 400022 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400022 Pan:Aaats 1440Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 15/Mum/2019 In Ita No. 5551/Mum/20178 (A Y 2012-13) M/S Shree Manav Seva Sangh Income Tax Officer (E)-2(3), 255/257, Sion Main Road, Soin Room No.513, 5Th Floor, Vs. (West), Mumbai 400022 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Pan:Aaats 1440Q Lower Parel, Mumbai-400022 Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Dinesh Shah & Shreya Doshi (Ar’S) Revenue By : Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Shah & Shreya Doshi (AR’s)For Respondent: Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-DR)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…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 (E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Mahavira Jain Vidyalaya, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5550/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanincome Tax Officer (E)-2(3), M/S Shri Mahavira Jain Room No.513, 5Th Floor, Vidyalaya, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 99/101, Shri Kvo Jain, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400022 Mahajanwadi, Keshavji Naik Road, Chinch Bunder, Sandhurst Road, Mumbai 400009 Pan:Aaats2075B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. K.F. Doshi-Ca (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019

For Appellant: Sh. K.F. Doshi-CA (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Satish Chandra Rajora (Sr-DR)

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)

…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…

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Hockey Federation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2010-11 Ito (Exemptions) India Hockey Ward-1(2), Room No. 2417, Federation 30/7, 24Th Floor, E-2-Block, West Patel Nagar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, New Delhi Vs. Dr. Shyama Prasad Pan Aaaji0054N Mukherjee Civic Centre, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2(15)

…e 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. FramjeeCawasjee 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(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Society of Congregation of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai

ITA 5549/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arum Kumar

Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…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 (Born). 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 ITA. No.5549/M/2017 A.Y.2012-13 Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because; full c…

Income Tax Officer (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Society of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai

ITA 5547/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Ruchi TamhankarFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arum Kumar

Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…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 (Born). 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 ITA. No.5547/M/2017 A.Y.2012-13 Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because; full c…

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shree Kanchi Mahaswami Chandrasekarendra Saraswati Peetarohana Shatabdi, Mumbai

ITA 5546/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudary Arum Kumar

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 32

…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 (Born). 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 Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because; full capital expenditure had been allow…

Sanskriti Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2493/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…firmative 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…

Sanskriti Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2492/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…firmative 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

Rural Education and Action for Liberation, Villupuram vs. ITO Ward 1, Villupuram

Rural Education and Action for Liberation, Villupuram vs. ITO Ward 1, Villupuram

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

Income-Tax Officer vs. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITO(Exemptions), Ahmedabad vs. Chamunda Foundation, Ahmedabad

Chamunda Foundation, Ahmedabad vs. The CIT, Gandhinagar

Jt.CIT (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Dawat-E- Hadiyah, Mumbai

M/S. Indian Institute of Management & Engineering Society, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

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

Income Tax Officer (E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Mahavira Jain Vidyalaya, Mumbai

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Indian Hockey Federation, New Delhi

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. Society of Congregation of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Society of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shree Kanchi Mahaswami Chandrasekarendra Saraswati Peetarohana Shatabdi, Mumbai

Sanskriti Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Sanskriti Educational Society, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi