← All Phrases

“Section 11(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(6)170 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 11(6) is CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110), cited in 398 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 11(6)

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

CIT v. Society of the Sisters of St. Anne
146 ITR 28 · 1984 · High Court
195
citing judgments

Depreciation claimed by a charitable trust on its assets is an allowable application of income for computing exemption under Section 11, and this does not constitute a double deduction.

Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute
109 CTR 463 · 1993 · High Court
191
citing judgments

A charitable trust is allowed to claim depreciation on its assets for computing its income, even if the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring those assets was treated as an application of income in the year of acquisition.

CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
402 ITR 441 · 2018 · Supreme Court
187
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable as a deduction even if the expenditure for acquiring the capital asset was treated as application of income for charitable purposes. This does not constitute a double benefit.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli
330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court
113
citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

CIT v. Matriseva Trust
242 ITR 20 · 2000 · High Court
91
citing judgments

An excess of expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in previous years can be adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, and this adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

Govindu Naicker Estate v. ADIT
248 ITR 368 · 2001 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A charitable trust may adjust expenditure incurred for religious or charitable purposes in an earlier year against the income of a subsequent year, which is considered an application of income for the subsequent year under Section 11. This principle is guided by commercial considerations and the benevolent intent of Section 11.

Judgments citing Section 11(6)

M/S Tamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemmoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions, Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1091/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions) Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1090/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

M/S Thamizhel Ptp Rajan, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemptions), Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1089/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO(Exemptions), Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1088/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

M/S Thamizhvel Pt Rajan Commemoration Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, (Exemptions)Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, penalty appeals also stand allowed

ITA 1087/CHNY/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1087/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1088/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1089/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1090/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1091/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1092/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1093/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1094/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1095/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Sitaben Shah Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Circle-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4680/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 143(3)

depreciation, ld. AO noted that assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.1,07,70,672/- in the income and expenditure account and after incorporating Section 11(6), he disallowed the depreciation of Rs.73,15,000/-. Assessee’s claim was that no such depreciation has been claimed which fact has been noted

Dharma Naidu Educational & Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. DCIT-Exemptions, Chennai Circle, Chennai

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

ITA 497/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 497/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Dharma Naidu Educational Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of & Charitable Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), No.24, Chengalvarayan Street, Chennai Circle, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 030. [Pan: Aaatd 2601E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.G. Raghunath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Srinivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 : 17.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Srinivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

basis as claimed in the past and subsequent to the said Assessment Year. Being the first year after the introduction of section 11(6) of the Act, appellant was required to fill up prescribed format of the Return of Income. In the prescribed format there were fields seeking details ... dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 11. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record. Section 11(6) of the Act provides as under : Section 11(6) inserted with effect from 1.4.2015 by Finance Act No.2/2014, reads as under: "(6) In this

Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward -2, Bangalore

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

ITA 1141/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD

M/S. Techno Construction, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4120/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Techno Construction Vs Ito, Flat No.44, Santosh Apartments, Ward-27(3), Plot No.39B, Sector-6, New Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Aacft5711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Arora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shyam M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.91/15-16 Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Dated 11.02.2014 Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 41(1)

dated 24.10.2004, the claimant was therefore, constrained to file the Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration 4 ITAs No.4119 & 4120/Del/2016 Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It has also been stated that as per the partnership deed, the dispute between the claimant

M/S. Techno Construction, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4119/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Techno Construction Vs Ito, Flat No.44, Santosh Apartments, Ward-27(3), Plot No.39B, Sector-6, New Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Aacft5711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Arora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shyam M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.91/15-16 Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Dated 11.02.2014 Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 41(1)

dated 24.10.2004, the claimant was therefore, constrained to file the Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration 4 ITAs No.4119 & 4120/Del/2016 Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. It has also been stated that as per the partnership deed, the dispute between the claimant

Sasha Association for Craft Producers, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

ITA 980/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Income declared as per ITR
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru vs. Sri Raghavendra Educational Institutions Society, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 11(6)

have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the materials available on record. As rightly pointed out by the ld. D.R., the provisions of section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) reads as follows: “Section 11(6): In this section where any income is required ... deduction. This fact has to be verified at the end of ld. AO and to decide afresh in the light of provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. Accordingly, this issue is remitted to the file of ld. AO for reconsideration in the light of above observation. 6

The Institute of India Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1230/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajashthan and Gujrati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) in the context of amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (NO.2) Act 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 wherein it has been held that up to AY 2015-16 the assessee ... stage that the legislature, realizing 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 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1229/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajashthan and Gujrati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) in the context of amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (NO.2) Act 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 wherein it has been held that up to AY 2015-16 the assessee ... stage that the legislature, realizing 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 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken

The Institute of Indian Foundrymen, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1228/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajashthan and Gujrati Charitable Foundation [2018] 402 ITR 441 (SC) in the context of amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (NO.2) Act 2014 w.e.f 01.04.2015 wherein it has been held that up to AY 2015-16 the assessee ... stage that the legislature, realizing 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 2015-16. The Delhi High Court has taken

Smt.Sulochanadevi Singhania School Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Exem)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3713/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi & Hitesh TrivediFor Respondent: Dr Kishore Dhule- CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 28Section 6

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

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

addition of the depreciation as claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs.38,24,001/- without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act were amended vide Finance Act, 2014 which was prospectively applicable from AY 2015-16. 14. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

addition of the depreciation as claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs.38,24,001/- without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act were amended vide Finance Act, 2014 which was prospectively applicable from AY 2015-16. 14. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income

Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1636/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

addition of the depreciation as claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs.38,24,001/- without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act were amended vide Finance Act, 2014 which was prospectively applicable from AY 2015-16. 14. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income

M/S Avm Charities, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

addition of the depreciation as claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs.38,24,001/- without appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act were amended vide Finance Act, 2014 which was prospectively applicable from AY 2015-16. 14. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income