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

109 CTR 463High Court1993#491 most cited

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.

191

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Director of Income-tax v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute · 109 CTR 463 · charitable trust depreciation · section 11 · section 32 · application of income · capital expenditure · computation of trust income · depreciable assets · income from assets

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(23C)(iiiad)Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(6)accumulation of incomesection 11(1)(a)section 11(1)application of incomesection 10(23c)section 32capital expendituresection 28section 12asection 10section 12

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

The Dy.DIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Monark Education Trust, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 373/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2018AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 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 acqu…

Vellalar Educatiional Trust, Erode vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 1402/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1402/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Vellalar Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Perundurai Road, Thindal, Vs. Exemptions Ward, Erode 638 012. Salem. [Pan: Aaatv1446M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…section 11 of the Act, the same has to be computed commercially and depreciation has to be allowed. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted 3 I.T.A. No.1402/M/17 that the assessee is eligible for depreciation even though the cost of asset was claimed as application of income in the year of acquisition. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that, admittedly, the assessee claime…

Paramasivam Palaniswamy Charitable Trust, Erode vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 1401/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1401/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Paramasivam Palaniswamy The Income Tax Officer, Charitable Trust, Vs. Exemptions Ward, No. 119, Bhavani Road, Salem. Erode 638 004. [Pan: Aaaap0606L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…section 11 of the Act, the same has to be computed commercially and depreciation has to be allowed. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463. In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted 3 I.T.A. No.1401/M/17 that the assessee is eligible for depreciation even though the cost of asset was claimed as application of income in the year of acquisition. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that, admittedly, the assessee claime…

Kovai Medical Center Research and Educational Trust, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1783/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1783/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Kovai Medical Center The Income Tax Officer, Research & Charitable Trust, Vs. Company Ward 1, No. 940/1A & B, Kovai Estate, Coimbatore. Kalapatti Road, Coimbatore – 48. [Pan: Aaatk2825P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, JCIT
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32

…section 11 of the Act, the same has to be computed commercially and depreciation has to be allowed. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463. In 3 I.T.A. No.1783/M/16 view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee is eligible for depreciation even though the cost of asset was claimed as application of income in the year of acquisition and moreover as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case…

The ITO, (Exemptions), Palanpur vs. The Banaskantha District Kelvani Mandal, Palanpur

ITA 966/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Manthan S. Khokani, AR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 28Section 29Section 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 acqu…

Educational Trust of Seventh Day Adventists, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1709/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1709/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Educational Trust Of Seventh Day Adventists, The Assistant Director Of Income Aa 148, Iii Avenue, V. Tax (Exemptions) – Iii, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aaate 0547 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 32

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1709/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Educational Trust of Seventh Day Adventists, The Assistant Director of Income AA 148, III Avenue, v. Tax (Exemptions) – III, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAATE 0547 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri R.M. Narayanan, CA…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Sadhu Vaswani Mission Bombay, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4144/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4144/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito(E)-2(3), Sadhu Vaswani Mission बनाम/ Room No. 513, Piramal Chambers, 13/14, Geetanjali, Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai-400 012 Behind Radio Club, Colaba, Vs. Mumbai-400 005 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacts 1706 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N. Hemlatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Subramanian

For Appellant: Ms. N. HemlathaFor Respondent: Shri M. Subramanian
Section 32Section 77

…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 (Bom). 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 allowe…

ITO (E) 1(4), Mumbai vs. Kherwadi Social Welfare Association, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4039/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito (E) 1(4) Vs. Kherwadi Social Welfare Association R.No.507, 5Th Floor Parishramalaya, Piramal Chambers Kherwadi, Bandra (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm5552F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. M. Hemalatha

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ersonnel 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 (Bom). 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 allowe…

Services Association of Seventh Day Adventists P Ltd, Chennai vs. Jdit Exemption, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 35

…being discussed in the present case. 26. We are supported in our view by a plethora of decisions of various High Courts - the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain (1994 Tax Law Reporter 1084) and DIT (Exem) Vs. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463); Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Society of the Sisters of St.Anne (146 ITR 28); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Raipur Pallottine Society (180 ITR 579); Gujarath High Court in CIT Vs. Sheth Manilal rachhnoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore vs. M/S. North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 166/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…which has expired during that period.' 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. (1) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 [Guj.]; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Raipur Pallottine Society,. [1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] (3) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598 [Guj.]; (4) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust [1999] 240 ITR 513 [Cal.]; (5) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore vs. M/S. North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 165/BANG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…which has expired during that period.' 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. (1) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 [Guj.]; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Raipur Pallottine Society,. [1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] (3) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598 [Guj.]; (4) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust [1999] 240 ITR 513 [Cal.]; (5) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mangalore vs. M/S. North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 164/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Sagar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Ms. Pratibha, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…which has expired during that period.' 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. (1) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 [Guj.]; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Raipur Pallottine Society,. [1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] (3) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598 [Guj.]; (4) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust [1999] 240 ITR 513 [Cal.]; (5) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Vidyanidhi Education Trust, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1073/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT
Section 11(6)Section 143(3)Section 28

…ITA.1073/Bang/2016 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.1073/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Ex), Circle -1, Bengaluru .. Appellant v. Vidyanidhi Education Trust, No.42/3, Shivanahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru 560 064 .. Respondent PAN : AAATV0825G Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Heard on : 08.11.2017 Pronounced on : 10.11.2017 O R D E R PER LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Th…

ITO(E), Jaipur vs. Mayura Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1092/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.S. Shekhawat, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(3)Section 2

…e the corpus of the trust and, therefore, it does not amount to double benefit or double deduction. To substantiate the contention reliance is placed upon the judgment of Bombay Court in Director of Income Tax v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, reported in (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bombay), concluding that the depreciation on depreciable assets had to be taken into account in computing income of a religious trust although the amount spent of acquiring such assets has been treated as application of income of the trust in the year in which assets were acquired. In CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel, reported in 2003 131 T…

ACIT-(E), Circle-1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, Bangalore

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

ITA 1516/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, No.17, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 052. … Respondent Pan:Aaatb 0895 L

For Appellant: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Muralidhar, H, Advocate
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 35(1)(iv)

…which has expired during that period.' 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. (1) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 [Guj.]; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Raipur Pallottine Society,. [1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] (3) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598 [Guj.]; (4) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust [1999] 240 ITR 513 [Cal.]; (5) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan…

DCIT (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Mandke Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4108/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4108/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dy. Cit (Exemptions)-2(1), Mandke Foundation बनाम/ Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Rao Saheb Achutrao Patwardhan Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Marg, Four Bunglows, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aatm 4557 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Hemalatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Sanghavi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.03.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "Whether On The Facts Of The Case & In Law The Id.Cit(A) Erred In Aliening The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Disallowing Depreciation On Fixed Assets Of Rs.60,92,65,396/- In Contravention Of The Decision Of Escorts

For Appellant: Shri N. HemalathaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi
Section 11Section 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 (Bom). 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 allowe…

ITO (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs. Kutchi Kadva Ptidar Gnyati Trust Fund, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3308/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito (E) 2 (3) Vs. Kutchi Kadva Patidar R.No.513, Gnyati Trust Fund Piramal Chamber, Patidar Wadi, Lbs Marg Lalbaug, Lower Parel Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 086 Pan/Gir No. Aacts0647K Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…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 (Bom). 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 a/lowe…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Vokkaligara Sangha, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1336/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Vokkaligara Sangha, Kr Road, Vv Puram, Bengaluru-560004. … Respondent Pan: Aaatv 3662 K Appellant By : Shri S.Nambirajan, Addl.Cit(Dr) Respondent By : S/Shri L.Bharath & Vishal Dedhia, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S.Nambirajan, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: S/Shri L.Bharath & Vishal Dedhia, CA
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…which has expired during that period.' 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. (1) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 [Guj.]; (2) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Raipur Pallottine Society,. [1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] (3) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598 [Guj.]; (4) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust [1999] 240 ITR 513 [Cal.]; (5) Commissioner of Income-tax, v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. Sri. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust, Kolar

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Prabat, CIT-III (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 11Section 28

…ture, which has expired during that period." 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. [1] DIT (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, [1993] 109 CTR 463 [GUJ]; [2] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Raipur Pallottine Society[1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] [3] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust198 ITR 598 [GUJ]; [4] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust[1999] 240 ITR 513 [CAL]; [5] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty…

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Bangalore vs. M/S. Sri. Lakshmi Education Society, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 11Section 28

…ture, which has expired during that period." 16. Similar view is taken by the other High Courts viz., Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana, Delhi, Madras, Calcutta and Madhya Pradesh in the following judgments. [1] DIT (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute, [1993] 109 CTR 463 [GUJ]; [2] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Raipur Pallottine Society[1989] 180 ITR 579 [MP] [3] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Seth Manilal Ranchoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust198 ITR 598 [GUJ]; [4] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Bhoruka Public Welfare Trust[1999] 240 ITR 513 [CAL]; [5] Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty…