Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

348 ITR 344High Court2012#596 most cited

What is Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT authority for?

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

164

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lissie Medical Institutions v CIT · Section 11 Income Tax Act · depreciation charitable trust · charitable institution depreciation · Section 11(6) amendment · carry forward depreciation · accumulation of income · application of income · Kerala High Court depreciation

Also reported as

24 Taxmann.com 9209 Taxmann 19

Sections most often in play

Section 11 to 13 of the Income Tax ActSection 11(6) of the Income Tax ActSection 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the ActSection 28 of the Income Tax ActSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 17
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 11(6)section 10(23c)(iv)accumulation of incomesection 11(1)(a)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 251(2)section 10(23c)section 2(15)application of incomesection 32section 28

Judgments citing Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

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)

…rities vs. DDIT [2012] 51 SOT 538 (Chennai); • DIT (Exemption) vs. G.K.R. Charities (2013) 214 Taxman 555 (Bombay); 9.4 The Learned Assessing Officer sought to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applica…

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)

…rities vs. DDIT [2012] 51 SOT 538 (Chennai); • DIT (Exemption) vs. G.K.R. Charities (2013) 214 Taxman 555 (Bombay); 9.4 The Learned Assessing Officer sought to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applica…

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)

…rities vs. DDIT [2012] 51 SOT 538 (Chennai); • DIT (Exemption) vs. G.K.R. Charities (2013) 214 Taxman 555 (Bombay); 9.4 The Learned Assessing Officer sought to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applica…

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)

…rities vs. DDIT [2012] 51 SOT 538 (Chennai); • DIT (Exemption) vs. G.K.R. Charities (2013) 214 Taxman 555 (Bombay); 9.4 The Learned Assessing Officer sought to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applica…

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)

…rities vs. DDIT [2012] 51 SOT 538 (Chennai); • DIT (Exemption) vs. G.K.R. Charities (2013) 214 Taxman 555 (Bombay); 9.4 The Learned Assessing Officer sought to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applica…

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)

…rities vs. DDIT [2012] 51 SOT 538 (Chennai); • DIT (Exemption) vs. G.K.R. Charities (2013) 214 Taxman 555 (Bombay); 9.4 The Learned Assessing Officer sought to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 344 to deny depreciation on assets which have been claimed as application of income. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). It is submitted that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) is not applica…

Income Tax Officer (Examption) Ward, Surat vs. Shree Saibaba Satsang Mandal, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 233/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Dec 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.233/SRT/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward, Shree Saibaba Satsang Mandal Room No. 105, 1st Floor, Anavil Nani Hing Pole, Chauta Bazar, Surat- Vs. Business Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, 395003 Adajan Hazira Road, Surat-395 009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABTS 2675 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assesseeby :Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR Revenueby :Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 22/10/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 168/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that th…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 167/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that th…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 166/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that th…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 165/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that th…

Vocational Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Exemption Range, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6051/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. A.;&For Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 2(15)Section 251Section 251(1)Section 251(2)

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that th…

Pooja Seva Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jaipur

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

ITA 890/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 890/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pooja Seva Shiksha Samiti, Cuke A.C.I.T.(Exemptions) Vs. Old Add:- B-22, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Jaipur. Nagar, Jaipur. New Add:- Ip Phase Iv, Opp. Choki Dhani, Sitapura, Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaatp 8689 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddartha Ranka (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :22/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 29/08/2017 For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Reads As Under: “1. That In The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Lower Authorities Has Grossly Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Of Depreciation Amounting To Rs. 1,09,21,449/- As An Application Of Income.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Siddartha Ranka (Advs.)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 890/JP/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pooja Seva Shiksha Samiti, cuke A.C.I.T.(Exemptions) Vs. Old Add:- B-22, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Jaipur. Nagar, Jaipur. New Add:- IP Phase IV, Opp. Choki Dhani, Sitapura, Jaipur. PAN No.: AAATP 8689 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Siddartha Ranka (Advs.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ R…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1333/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011 – 12 Acit (E) Circle – 1, M/S Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, 143, R. P. Building, 2Nd Floor, Bengaluru. Vs. Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaatk1350J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C. A. Revenue By : Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Same Is Directed Against An Order Of Learned Cit(A) – 14, Ltu, Bengaluru Dated 20.04.2016. 2. In This Appeal, Although Various Grounds Are Raised By The Revenue But There Are Only Two Grievances. First Grievance Is This That Learned Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Holding That Proviso To Section 2 (15) Is Not Applicable In The Present Case. Second Grievance Is This That Learned Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Holding That Depreciation Is Allowable In The Present Case By Ignoring The Judgment Of Hon’Ble Kerala High Court Rendered In The Case Of Lissie Medical Institution Vs. Cit, 348 Itr 344 & Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT DR
Section 2

…in the present case. Second grievance is this that learned CIT (A) is not justified in holding that depreciation is allowable in the present case by ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Lissie Medical Institution vs. CIT, 348 ITR 344 and Page 2 of 3 judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI, 199 ITR 43 3. In course of hearing, learned DR of the revenue supported the assessment order on both issues and learned AR of the assessee supported the order of CIT (A) on both issues. Learned AR of the assessee also submitted that on pages 373 to 38…

Harish Chand Ram Kali Charitable Trust, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee partly

ITA 4240/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiharish Chand Ram Kali Vs. The Addl Commissioner Of Charitable Trust Income Tax Kf-91, Kavi Nagar Range-1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up Up Pan: Aath3018B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri James Singdon Sr DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143Section 147Section 2

…same. 3. It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 9/209 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/348 ITR 344'. 4. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the legislature, realising that there was no specific provision in this behalf in the Income-tax Act, has made amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The Delhi High Court has taken the view and rightly so, that th…

Jha Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO(Exemption), Ward - 1(1), 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)

…s High Court considered all the judgments passed post amendment of Section 11 including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and after considering particular judgment Kerala High Court in the matter of Lissie Medical Institution - Vs- CIT (2012) 348 ITR 344 (Kerala) which is not in favour of the assessee still the Hon'ble Madras High Court allowed the claim of depreciation of the assessee. In this connection it may be further considered that the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court at Calcutta has been passed after the said judgment of the Lissie Medical Institution and therefore, it is respect…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Bholaram Education Society, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2422/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kishan Vyas, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 4

…of appeal is allowed and AO is directed to allow amount of investment in the fixed assets as part of application of income as per sec. 11(1)(a).” 13. Heard both the sides. Learned Departmental Representative quotes case law Lissie Medical Institutions vs. CIT 348 ITR 344 (Kerla) to contend that the CIT(A) had rightly made the impugned disallowance. He however fails to dispute that the same goes contrary to hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in case of Satyavardhan Patel Hindu Dharamshala Trust (supra). We therefore express our respectful agreement with hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision to aff…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle- 1, Mangalore vs. M/S Hubli Dharwad Urban Development Authority, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1668/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant M/S. Hubli Dharwad Urban Commissioner Of Development Authority, Income Tax Vs. Navanagar, (Exemptions), Hubbali. Circle – 1, Pan: Aaalh0053J Mangaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gangadhar .J.M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar .J.M, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 10(2)Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 251(1)(a)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant M/s. Hubli Dharwad Urban Commissioner of Development Authority, Income tax Vs. Navanagar, (Exemptions), Hubbali. Circle – 1, PAN: AAALH0053J Mangaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Gangadhar .J.M, Advocate Revenue by : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 04.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the revenue and the same is di…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Centre for Advanced Education, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 640/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

…ety to determine the Income for the purpose of application under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. 6. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Lissie Medical Institutions in ITA No. 42 of 2011 [348 ITR 344 (Ker)(2012)] and on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) Vs Charanjiv Charitable Trust in ITA No. 321/2013 and in ITA No. 322/2013 dated 18.03.2014. Hence, it was held that the claim of depreciation of Rs. 5,00,31,420/- is not allowed to assessee as application of income. 7. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition based on…

Indian Medical Association, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessees are allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 14Section 32

…hen deduction u/s 32 (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure as Scientific Research, no depreciation was to be allowed u/s 32 of the I. T act in the same asset. 4.3 In the case of Lissie Medical Institutions V/s. Commissioner of Income- tax, Kochi, 348 ITR 344, the hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held that When the expenditure incurred for acquisition of depreciable assets itself is treated as application of income or charitable purpose u/s. ll(l)(a), should not the cost of such assets to be treated as nil for the assessee and in that situation depreciation to be granted terms out to be Nil. However,…