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

Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. the New Cambridge Educational Trust, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Singh, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Suresh, CA
Section 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…

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Fortune Society for Development and Promotion of International Business, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ADIT(E), Vs. Fortune Society for TC-II, New Delhi Development and Promotion of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi PAN:AAATF0849L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR Revenue by: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv Shri C.N. Malik, CA Shri Manish Malik, CA Date of Hearing 05/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the ld…

Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Memorial Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1635/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…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) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463); Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St.Anne (146 ITR 28); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT v. 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 v. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT v. Tiny Tots Edu…

Rani Meyyammai Achi of Chettinad Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1634/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…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) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463); Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St.Anne (146 ITR 28); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT v. 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 v. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT v. Tiny Tots Edu…

Rani Meyyammai Achi of Chettinad Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions) 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1633/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…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) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (109 CTR 463); Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St.Anne (146 ITR 28); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT v. 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 v. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT v. Tiny Tots Edu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Gokula Education Foundation (Medicall), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1609/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. 2-3. ITA Nos.1610 & 1611(Bang)/2016 (Assessment years: 2006-07 & 2009-10) 4-6. ITA Nos.1612, 1605 & 1613/Bang/2016 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) Circle 17(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. 1. M/s.Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), MS Ramaiah Nagar, MSRIT Post, Mathikere, Bengaluru-560054. PAN: AATG 1779 Q 2-3. M/s.Gokula Education Foundation, MS Ramaiah Nagar, MSRIT Post, Mathikere, Bengaluru-560…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Gokula Education Foundation (Hospital), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1605/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. 2-3. ITA Nos.1610 & 1611(Bang)/2016 (Assessment years: 2006-07 & 2009-10) 4-6. ITA Nos.1612, 1605 & 1613/Bang/2016 (Assessment years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) Circle 17(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. 1. M/s.Gokula Education Foundation (Medical), MS Ramaiah Nagar, MSRIT Post, Mathikere, Bengaluru-560054. PAN: AATG 1779 Q 2-3. M/s.Gokula Education Foundation, MS Ramaiah Nagar, MSRIT Post, Mathikere, Bengaluru-560…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. Taralabalu Bruhanmatt, Chitradurga

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 893/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamalakar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…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] Page 5 of 15 (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 C…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Podar Education and Sport Trust, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 765/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Samria, C.A
Section 11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. Nos.765 & 766/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2012-13) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore. …. Appellant. Vs. 1. M/s. Podar Education and Sport Trust, 103/1, Basavanapura, Off Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. 2. M/s. Podar Education Trust, 103/1, Basavanapura, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, Bengaluru. Respondent By : Shri R.S. Samria, C.A. Date of Hearing : 31.05.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 31.0…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Sudhir Madhavji Lall Welfare & Educationaltrust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 824/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Dcit (E) 2 (1), Mumbai – Vs. Shri Sudhir Madhavji Lall 400 012 Welfare & Educational Trust, 3/6A Filka Building Trust Daftary Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aaets9844F Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 11Section 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 allowe…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sharddha Trust, Bangalore

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

ITA 899/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Shraddha Trust, No.37/10, Yellappa Chetty Layout, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru-560042. … Respondent Pan: Aacts 7373J

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel for DepartmentFor Respondent: None
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income-tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Shraddha Trust, No.37/10, Yellappa Chetty Layout, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru-560042. … Respondent PAN: AACTS 7373J Appellant by : Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel for Department Respondent by : None Date of hearing : 06/04/2017 Date of pronouncement : 07/04/2017 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal appeal a filed by the revenue directed against the orders of CKT(A)-14, LTU, Bengalur…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Stracey Memorial Educational Society, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2011-12 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 854/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel for DepartmentFor Respondent: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA
Section 11(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.853 & 854/Bang/2016 (Assessment years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income-tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Stracey Memorial Education Society, No.52,St. Marks Road, Bengaluru-560001. … Respondent PAN: AABTS 2132 A Appellant by : Shri G.Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel for Department Respondent by : Shri C.R.Nulvi, CA. Date of hearing : 04/04/2017 Date of pronouncement : 07/04/2017 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : These are appeals a file…

Dy.DIT, Bangalore vs. Maharani Lakshmi Ammani College Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 391/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.A
Section 11(1)(a)

…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…

Erode Hindu Kalvi Nilayam Trust, Erode vs. DCIT, Income Tax(Exemps), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2195/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2195/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Erode Hindu Kalvi Nilayam Trust, The Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Hindu Kalvi Nilayam Matriculation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions), Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore. Mamarathuppalayam, Periasemur Post, Erode 638 004. [Pan: Aaate6065K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Sriniranjani, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar. V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 23.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Depreciation Claimed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 11Section 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. 3 I.T.A. No.2195/M/17 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. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that, admittedly, the assessee claime…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3653/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…16 (P & H) and following the aforementioned decision decided the issue against the Revenue. It is worth mentioning that the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court is a later decision considering another decision in DIT(E) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 and also another decision from Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Shri Plot Swetamber Muti Pujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we affirm the 8 M.L. Charitable Trust ITA Nos.3652, 3653 & 3893/Mum/2013 C.O. No.142/Mum/2014 st…

DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai vs. M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…16 (P & H) and following the aforementioned decision decided the issue against the Revenue. It is worth mentioning that the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court is a later decision considering another decision in DIT(E) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 and also another decision from Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Shri Plot Swetamber Muti Pujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we affirm the 8 M.L. Charitable Trust ITA Nos.3652, 3653 & 3893/Mum/2013 C.O. No.142/Mum/2014 st…

M.L. Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. DDIT (E) I(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

…16 (P & H) and following the aforementioned decision decided the issue against the Revenue. It is worth mentioning that the decision from Hon'ble Bombay High Court is a later decision considering another decision in DIT(E) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 and also another decision from Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Shri Plot Swetamber Muti Pujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we affirm the 8 M.L. Charitable Trust ITA Nos.3652, 3653 & 3893/Mum/2013 C.O. No.142/Mum/2014 st…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust

In the result, all the appeals are

ITA/384/2016HC Karnataka28 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 260Section 263

…red 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, vs FRAMJEE CAWASJEE INSTITUTE, 109 CTR 463 [GUJ]; [2] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs RAIPUR PALLOTTINE SOCIETY,. 180 ITR 571 [MP] [3] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs SETH MANILAL RANCHODDAS VISHRAM BHAVAN TRUST 198 ITR 598 [GUJ]; 10 [4] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs BHORUKA PUBLIC WELFARE TRUST [1999] 240 ITR 513 [CAL]; [5] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs…

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Society of the Servant of the Holy Spirit, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit(Exemption)-2(1), Society Of The Servant Of The 5Th Floor, Holy Spirit, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Holy Spirit Hospital, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400092 Pan. No. Aaaas0148J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 256(1)

…n the affirmative, ie, in favour of the assessee and against the Department 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 Income-tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the y…

ITO (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. Dr..D.Y Patil Sports Academy, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6879/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

…r of the assessee and against the Department Dr. D. Y. Patil Sports Academy 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 Income-tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the y…