DIT (E) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust

383 ITR 517High Court2016#3752 most cited

What is DIT (E) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust authority for?

A charitable institution is eligible to claim depreciation in the computation of its income. This case held that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified in disallowing depreciation for a charitable institution.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

DIT (E) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust · depreciation · charitable institution · income computation · Section 11(6) · prospective

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing DIT (E) v. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust

M/S. AMARA JYOTHI EDUCATION TRUST,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 698/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the case of DIT[E] Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust and Others, reported in 383 ITR 517 [Kar] dated 22/02/2016, allowing depreciation in computing the income of a charitable institution, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. Page 6 of 13 ITA…

M/S. AMARA JYOTHI EDUCATION TRUST,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 690/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the case of DIT[E] Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust and Others, reported in 383 ITR 517 [Kar] dated 22/02/2016, allowing depreciation in computing the income of a charitable institution, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal, to add, alter, delete, amend or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal as may be necessary at the time of hearing. Page 6 of 13 ITA…

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…following cases, has held that section 11 (6) is prospective and applicable to AY 2015-16 and subsequent assessment years:  PCIT vs. Sri SriAdichunchanagiriShikshana Trust [2016] 241 Taxman 289 (Karnataka);  DIT (E) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust [2016] 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka);  CIT (E) vs. Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society [2016] 240 Taxman 567 (Karnataka); 9.9 Therefore, it is our submission that depreciation of Rs.2,34,685/- to be allowed.” 11.2 Ld. D.R. relied on the order of the lower authorities. 11.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In our opinion, this…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. THE BISHOPS EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2551/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

…n 11 of the I.T. Act providing that no double deduction shall be allowed in respect of the fixed assets is held to be prospective. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax, Exemptions vs. Al- Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka – HC) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bangalore vs. Karnataka Reddy Janasangha, 389 ITR 229 (Karnataka – HC) took the similar view. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan And Gujarat Charitable Foundation (supra) also held to be same effect. 12. We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE ,, PUNE vs. SHIVNAGAR VIDYA PRASARAK MANDAL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2548/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

…n 11 of the I.T. Act providing that no double deduction shall be allowed in respect of the fixed assets is held to be prospective. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax, Exemptions vs. Al- Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, 383 ITR 517 (Karnataka – HC) and in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bangalore vs. Karnataka Reddy Janasangha, 389 ITR 229 (Karnataka – HC) took the similar view. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan And Gujarat Charitable Foundation (supra) also held to be same effect. 12. We find that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is in…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/79/2016HC Karnataka20 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260

…has already been answered against the revenue by a decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. RAJASTHAN & GUJARAT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA' (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC) as well as the decision of this Court in 'DIT Vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST' (2016) 383 ITR 517 (KAR). It is also submitted that the second substantial question of law has already been answered against the revenue by the decisions of this Court in 'CIT Vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE' (2018) 408 ITR 352 KAR as well as 'PCIT Vs. MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION (2019) 415 ITR 361 (KAR). The aforesaid submission could not be di…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/80/2016HC Karnataka20 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260

…has already been answered against the revenue by a decision of the Supreme Court in 'CIT Vs. RAJASTHAN & GUJARAT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA' (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC) as well as the decision of this Court in 'DIT Vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST' (2016) 383 ITR 517 (KAR). It is also submitted that the second substantial question of law has already been answered against the revenue by the decisions of this Court in 'CIT Vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE' (2018) 408 ITR 352 KAR as well as 'PCIT Vs. MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION (2019) 415 ITR 361 (KAR). The aforesaid submission could not be di…

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 148Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…2015 -16 and onward. This amendment in section 11 applicable from 01.04.2015 has been held to be prospective as held by the Hon'ble High Court at Karnataka in the case of Director of IT (Exemp.) and another - vs. - AL Amen Charitable Trust reported in (2016) 383 ITR 517 (Kar). Accordingly, Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of CIT - Vs- Siliguri Accumulated Market Committee Report in (2014) 366 ITR 51(Calcutta) has allowed depreciation, in the similar facts of the case. It is respectfully submitted that precedent and judgment of Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta should be follo…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. T.A. PAI MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE,, MANGALURU

In the result, Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 2688/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2688/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. T. A. Pai Management Institute, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Post Box No.9, Circle–1, 80 Badagabettu, Manipal, Mangalore. Pan : Aaatt 2248 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, Ca Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 10(2)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…ets, inter alia, placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and other High Courts and of the Co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal. (i) DIT (Exemption) & Other Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (and connected Appeals)(2016) 383 ITR 517 (Kar). (ii) CIT Vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne (1984) 146 ITR. Page 5 of 12 (iii) Karnataka Reddy Janasangha Vs. DIT (E) (ITA No.220/Bang/2011 dated 07.09.2012) (iv) ACIT Vs. Medical Relief Society of South Canara (ITA No.1713/Bang/2013 dated 10.12.2014) (v) Sadvidya Educational Institution Vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No.604, 65 & 324/Bang/2011 dated…

SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1790/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 250 & 251/Del/2017 Asstt. Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Seth Anandram Jaipuria ACIT, Exemption Circle Education Society Ghaziabad Vs. Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School, Sector -14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. PAN AAAAS0860P (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2014-15 Seth Anandram Jaipuria JCIT, Range-2, Education Society Vs. Ghaziabad Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School, Sector -14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. PAN AAAAS0860P Assessee by: Shri R.S. Singhvi and…

SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 251/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 250 & 251/Del/2017 Asstt. Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Seth Anandram Jaipuria ACIT, Exemption Circle Education Society Ghaziabad Vs. Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School, Sector -14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. PAN AAAAS0860P (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2014-15 Seth Anandram Jaipuria JCIT, Range-2, Education Society Vs. Ghaziabad Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School, Sector -14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. PAN AAAAS0860P Assessee by: Shri R.S. Singhvi and…

SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 250/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi and Shri Satyajit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 250 & 251/Del/2017 Asstt. Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Seth Anandram Jaipuria ACIT, Exemption Circle Education Society Ghaziabad Vs. Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School, Sector -14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. PAN AAAAS0860P (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year 2014-15 Seth Anandram Jaipuria JCIT, Range-2, Education Society Vs. Ghaziabad Seth Anand Ram Jaipuria School, Sector -14C, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Uttar Pradesh. PAN AAAAS0860P Assessee by: Shri R.S. Singhvi and…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. DR. T. M. A. PAI FOUNDATION, MANIPAL

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

ITA 783/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sri Nandini Das, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 15Section 70

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORESHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2009-10 M/s. Dr. T.M.A. Pai The Assistant Commissioner of Foundation, Income Tax (Exemptions), Vs. Syndicate House, Circle – 1, Manipal – 576 104. Mangaluru. PAN: AAATD1327M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Sri Nandini Das, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 10.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same…

M/S.MARYMATHA SCHOOL TRUST,COCHIN vs. THE ITO(EXEMPTION), COCHIN

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

ITA 285/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.285/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Mary Matha School Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer Thrikkakara P.O. (Exemption), Kochi. Kochi-682 021. [Pan:Aabtm 0241L]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 272A(2)(e)Section 272A(3)Section 272A(4)

…aim depreciation as application of income upto and including assessment year 2014-15. Kind attention of Hon'ble Commissioner is invited to the recent judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case Director of Income Tax Vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 383 ITR 517 (Kam). The decision was in favour of the assessee. Copy enclosed. 2. School Development Fee and Fund ' School Development fee Rs.26,35,000/- is an earmarked collection as corpus fund for development of the school Trust for rendering advanced facilities to the students who are its beneficiaries. Similarly, Building Fund of Rs. 75,100/- is also of…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2