What is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI authority for?

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

How many judgments cite Escorts Ltd. v. UOI?

267 judgments on BharatTax cite Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Escorts Ltd. v. UOI come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(1)(a), Section 12A, Section 12AA, Section 48, Section 10(23C)(iv).

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43)

Al- Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Dy.D.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaal-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, No.3, Miller Tank Road, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560052. … Appellant Pan: Aaata 2729E Vs. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Circle 17(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gurumurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 1Section 10Section 11(1)(a)

…by just stating that detailed reasons have not been given, little realising that the ratio of the decision is important and not the length of the decision. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in applying the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd (199 ITR 43), though the point of distinction was clearly brought about by the appellant. 13) The learned CIT(A) followed the decision of the Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions case in preference to the jurisdictional High Court. The overwhelming views of the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Bombay and Punjab & Haryana, in favour of the a…

DDIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Accion Technical Advisors India, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1040/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…ed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 6. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Socie…

Podar Education Trust, Bangalore vs. Asst. DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…n the other hand, the learned departmental representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the AO has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escort Ltd. & another vs. Union of India & Others (199 ITR 43). 8. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue ITA Nos.1022 & 1023/Bang/2014 Podar Education & Sports Trust & Podar Education Trust Page 6 of 14 is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Institute of Bankin…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Hotel & Restaurant Management College Trust, Manipal

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 640/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.V.Bhaskar Reddy, JCIT

Section 10(23)(C)

…ve been claimed by the ITA No.640(B)/2014 assessee as an application of income for charitable activities. 2.2. The learned CIT (A) erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd and another Vs Union of India - 199 ITR 43 - wherein it is held that a double deduction cannot be presumed in the absence of a clear statutory indication. 2.3. The learned CIT (A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that allowing of total cost of the asset as an application of income and allowing of depreciation on the value of such assets in the same year results in double deduction and…

Rama Naick Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2930/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2930/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. A. Kanagaraj, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 32Section 42

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, एस एम सी "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2930/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Rama Naick Charitable The DDIT Trust, v. Exemptions II, 274, T.H. Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 021. PAN : AAATT0484B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. A. Kanagaraj, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 10.07.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pr…

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Coimbatore Multipurpose Social Service Society, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 2222/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1965/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…4 Written Down Value is NIL, on allowing the entire cost as application of income under Section 11 of the Act, the computation itself fails. The Ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 and also the judgment of Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT (2012) to taxmann.com 9. 9. On the contrary, Sh. A.S. Sriraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the taxable income of the assessee has to be computed in a commercial form after allowing all permissible deductions under the provisions of Income-tax Ac…

Coimbatore Multipurpose Social Service Society, Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1965/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1965/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…4 Written Down Value is NIL, on allowing the entire cost as application of income under Section 11 of the Act, the computation itself fails. The Ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 and also the judgment of Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT (2012) to taxmann.com 9. 9. On the contrary, Sh. A.S. Sriraman, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the taxable income of the assessee has to be computed in a commercial form after allowing all permissible deductions under the provisions of Income-tax Ac…

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1537/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT

Section 12A

…ount the receipts and payments of South Africa Test Match and Afro Asia Cup Match separately. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Escorts v. Union of India (199 ITR 43). After condoning the delay in filing Form 10 of accumulation of income, exemption was allowed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A. No.1851/Mds/201(1) dated 10.04.2012, the Ld. representative submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment…

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1536/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT

Section 12A

…ount the receipts and payments of South Africa Test Match and Afro Asia Cup Match separately. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Escorts v. Union of India (199 ITR 43). After condoning the delay in filing Form 10 of accumulation of income, exemption was allowed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A. No.1851/Mds/201(1) dated 10.04.2012, the Ld. representative submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment…

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1535/CHNY/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535, 1536 & 1537/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, The Deputy Director Of No.5, M.A.Chidambaram Stadium, V. Income Tax (Exemptions), Victoria Hostel Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. Pan : Aaaat 0398 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Ravichandran, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Rengaraj, CIT

Section 12A

…ount the receipts and payments of South Africa Test Match and Afro Asia Cup Match separately. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for depreciation by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Escorts v. Union of India (199 ITR 43). After condoning the delay in filing Form 10 of accumulation of income, exemption was allowed under Section 11(2) of the Act. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 in I.T.A. No.1851/Mds/201(1) dated 10.04.2012, the Ld. representative submitted that in the assessee's own case for assessment…

Juothy Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 662/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Babu Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…wed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 3. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Socie…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Academy of General Education, Manipal

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 636/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…wed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 3. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Socie…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

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

ITA 933/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, C.A

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)

…im of depreciation would amount to allowing double deduction. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Limited and Another V Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been held that a double deduction cannot be presumed unless specifically provided for by law as being in addition to the normal deduction. It was held 5 that when deduction under Section 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under Section…

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II

Section 268A

…entire cost of these assets have been claimed by the assessee as application of income for charitable activities. 2.2 The ld.,CIT(A) erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd and another Vs Union of India 199 ITR 43 – wherein it is held that a double deduction cannot be presumed in the absence of a clear statutory indication. 2.3 The ld,CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the fact that allowing of total cost of the asset as an application of income and allowing of depreciation on the value of such assets in the same year results in do8uble deduction and is n…

M/S Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society, Bangalore vs. Asst.D.It.., Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed

ITA 333/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad K, JCIT (D.R)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…ed on by the assessee (supra) are not applicable to the case on hand and would not come to the assessee's rescue. She was of the view that on the facts of the case on hand, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Limited & Another V UOI (199 ITR 43) is squarely applicable and provides the guidance for understanding the issue on hand, and wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction under Section 35(2)(iv) of the Act is allowable under Section 32 of the Act on the same asset. 4.2.3 The learned CIT (Appeals) referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of…

Mary Immaculate Society, Bangalore vs. Dydit, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 240/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR)

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

…wed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 3. The assessee pointed out before CIT(A) that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (…

Vidyaniketan Education and Cultural Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed, while the stay petition by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1349/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jun 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…wed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 4. The assessee pointed out before CIT(A) that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (K…

ITO, Mangalore vs. Our Lady of Milagres Church, Udupi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 138/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.P. Dhivahar, JCIT

Section 12A

…1961 (in short ‘the Act’), had claimed depreciation on assets as an outgo while computing its ITA.138/Bang/2015 Page - 2 income, which claim was disallowed by the AO relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Escort Ltd v. Union of India (199 ITR 43). 03. In its appeal before the CIT (A), the assessee relied on the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust [19 ITR (Trib) 828]. CIT (A) accepted the contention of the assessee by relying on the decisions of the Tribunal in the above mentioned case as well as in the case of Dr. TMA Pa…

DDIT, Bangalore vs. Jyothy Charitable Trust, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 522/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Babu Prasad, Advocate

Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…owed as such. According to the AO, allowing such a claim would amount to allowing double deduction. On the facts of the present case, he was of the view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another Vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 is squarely applicable, wherein it has been categorically held that when deduction u/s 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable u/s 32 on the same asset. 3. The assessee pointed out that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of All Saints Church, 148 ITR 786 (Kar) and Societ…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Cricket Association, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 71/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate

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

…eciation on the very same capital assets would amount to conferring double deduction in respect of the same expenditure. According to the Revenue, doing so would be contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43. 3. The CIT(Appeals), on the above issue, following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Society of Sisters of St. Anns, 146 ITR 28, held that deduction claimed by the assessee had to be allowed. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the Revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee is a…

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

What is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

Al- Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Dy.D.I.T., Bangalore

DDIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Accion Technical Advisors India, Bangalore

Podar Education Trust, Bangalore vs. Asst. DIT, Bangalore

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Hotel & Restaurant Management College Trust, Manipal

Rama Naick Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

ITO, Coimbatore vs. Coimbatore Multipurpose Social Service Society, Coimbatore

Coimbatore Multipurpose Social Service Society, Chennai vs. ITO, Coimbatore

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

Juothy Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Academy of General Education, Manipal

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

DCIT, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal

M/S Bangalore Baptist Hospital Society, Bangalore vs. Asst.D.It.., Bangalore

Mary Immaculate Society, Bangalore vs. Dydit, Bangalore

Vidyaniketan Education and Cultural Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Bangalore

ITO, Mangalore vs. Our Lady of Milagres Church, Udupi

DDIT, Bangalore vs. Jyothy Charitable Trust, Bangalore

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Cricket Association, Bangalore