How many judgments cite Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT?

164 judgments on BharatTax cite Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT (348 ITR 344), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11 to 13 of the Income Tax Act, Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act, Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, Section 139(1), Section 139(5).

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 Act Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 of the Act Section 28 of the Income Tax Act Section 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 income section 11(1)(a)proviso to section 2(15)section 11(1)section 251(2)section 10(23c)section 2(15)application of income section 32 section 28

Judgments citing Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT

DDIT, Chennai vs. Vels Institute of Science, Technology & Advanced Studies, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross- objection of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1759/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1759/Mds/2013 & C.O. No.15/Mds/2014 (In I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S. Bharath, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1759/Mds/2013 & C.O. No.15/Mds/2014 (in I.T.A. No.1759/Mds/2013) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Vels Institute of Science, The Deputy Director of Income- Technology & Advanced Studies, Tax (Exemptions), v. No.521/2, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 034. Nandanam, Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAATV 9804 F (Appellant) (Respondent &…

Prarthana Education Society, Bangalore vs. Dy.DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filled by the assessee is partly

ITA 730/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.730 (Bang)/2015 (Assessment year:2011-2012) PpppppppPrarthana Education Society 17/17A, Near Petrol Bunk, Kadirenahalli, Banashankari II Stage, Padmanabhanagar, Appellant Bangalore-560 070 PAN No.AAAAP2322D Vs The Deputy Director of Income-tax (Exemptns.) Circle-17(2), Bangal Bangalore Respondent Date of hearing : 12-10-2015 Date of pronouncement : 16-10-2015 Appellant by Shri Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT Respondent by O R D E R PER SHRI…

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)

…already been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 8. On appeal by the Asse…

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…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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) अपीलाथ" क…

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

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

Section 12A

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

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

Section 12A

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)

…ecovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The Page 3 of 13 AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Asse…

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)

…lready been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for Page 3 of 9 charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appea…

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)

…had already been recovered by way of application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The Assessing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Lissie Medical Institution reported in 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation on a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset was allowed as application of income amounts to double deduction and therefore depreciation cannot allowed. 6 6.2 On appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) held that the assessee's claim for depreciation is to be allowed.…

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

…esults in double deduction. The AO placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Escorts Ltd and Another 199 ITR 43 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs CIT, Cochin 348 ITR 344 and held that double deduction cannot be allowed. 6 ITA No.658(B)14 Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim of depreciation to the tune of Rs.70,40,56,376/-. 5. On appeal, the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee by following the order of this Tribunal in case of ACIT Vs Shri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust 19 ITR(Trib.) 828. 6. Bef…

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)

…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 DDIT (E) V Lissie Medical Institutions 348 ITR 344 (Ker), wherein it was held that allowing depreciation on a depreciable asset, when the cost of acquisition of the depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double deduction in respect of the same asset and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. 4.3 Before us, the learned Authorised Representative…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.240 & 241/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Mary Immaculate Society, Vs. The Deputy Director of 18th Cross, Wilson Garden, Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 030. Circle 17(2), PAN: AAATM 2014N Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chavali Narayan, CA Respondent by : Smt. Chandana Ramachandran, CIT-III(DR) Date of hearing : 17.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2015 O R D E R Per Bench These are appeals by the Assess…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.P.No.230/Bang/14 AND ITA Nos.1349/Bang/2014 Assessment years : 2009-10 Vidyaniketan Education and Vs. The Assistant Director of Cultural Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), Ullal Cross Road, Circle 17(2), Ullal Upanagar, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 056. PAN: AAATV 1618F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, CA Respondent by : Dr. Shankar Prasad, K., Jt. CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 16.06.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2015 O R D E R Per N.…

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

…ons v. CIT [(2012) 348 ITR 344)], in the latter decision. He allowed the claim of the assessee. 04. Now before us, Ld. DR submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT [(2012) 348 ITR 344)], the claim of depreciation on assets cost of which was allowed as an outgo while working out the utilisation could not be allowed. 05. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. 06. We have perused the orders and heard the contentions of the Ld. DR. The issue whether depreciation should be allowed on assets cost of which was allowed as a par…

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)

…ecovered by way of exemption as application of income Page 3 of 10 amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Ass…

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)

…already been recovered by way of exemption as application of income amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and ITA Nos.71 & 72/Bang/2015 Page 4 of 15 therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by…

ACIT, Mangalore vs. M/S City Hospital Charitable Trust, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: None

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

…ecovered by way of exemption as application of income Page 3 of 11 amounts to double deduction and double benefit on the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Ass…

M/S Krupanidhi Education Trust, Bangalore vs. DIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…while purchasing the new machinery in place of the existing, which otherwise amounts to double deduction / exemption.” 5. The DIT(E) also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The DIT listed out the details of application of income and claim of depreciation in…

Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. M/S Indraprastha Cancer Society

ITA/240/2014HC Delhi18 Nov 2014

Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…emption u/s. 11(1).” 4. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed after observing that no contrary judgment has been brought to the notice of this Court. 5. The High Court of Kerala in Lissie Medical Institutions versus Commissioner of Income Tax, (2012) 348 ITR 344 (Ker) has taken a different view, inter alia, holding as under:- “5. It is settled position through several decisions of High Courts and Supreme Courts that when business is held in trust by charitable institutions income from business has to be computed by granting deductions provided u/s 30 to 43D as provided under S.29 of the Income T…