ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTOR FUND,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

iv) Under the existing provisions, the flat rate of 65 per cent. is not applicable where the beneficiaries and their shares are known in the previous year, although such beneficiaries or their shares have not been specified in the relevant instrument of trust, order of the court or wakf deed. This provision has been misused in some cases by giving

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

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

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

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

Iv, D/T(Exemptions) v. Cutchi Memon Union [2013] 60 SOT 260/38 taxmann.com 276 (Bang), wherein similar issue has been dealt with this Tribunal. In the aforesaid case, the assessee claimed depreciation and the AO denied depreciation on the ground that at the time of acquiring the relevant capital asset, cost of acquisition was considered as a application of income

DY.DIT, BANGALORE vs. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

164 ITR 439 (Raj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Guj.). In CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 (Bom), it was held that in case of charitable trust whose income is exempt under s. 11, excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable institutions, social clubs or for charity did not stand to test of commercial expediency - Held, yes - Whether since assessee had not placed any other materials on record in support of their claim of expenditure over community development, so as to apply test of commercial expediency, expenses incurred by assessee for community development was not allowable under section 37(1

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable institutions, social clubs or for charity did not stand to test of commercial expediency - Held, yes - Whether since assessee had not placed any other materials on record in support of their claim of expenditure over community development, so as to apply test of commercial expediency, expenses incurred by assessee for community development was not allowable under section 37(1

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. THE NEW CAMBRIDGE EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iv) of the 1961 Act contra-indication which permits a disallowance of depreciation only in the previous years in which the other allowance is actually allowed. We think the answer is an emphatic 'no' and that the purpose of the words above referred to is totally different. If, as contended for by the assessees, there can be no objection

ACIT-(E), CIRCLE-1,, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN TRUST, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Laliet Kumarasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Mahaveer Memorial Jain Trust, No.17, Millers Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru-560 052. … Respondent Pan:Aaatb 0895 L

iv) of the 1961 Act contra- indication which permits a disallowance of depreciation only in the previous years in which the other allowance is actually allowed. We think the answer is an emphatic 'no' and that the purpose of the words above referred to is totally different. If, as contended for by the assessees, there can be no objection

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SHARDDHA TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoincome-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-3, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Shraddha Trust, No.37/10, Yellappa Chetty Layout, Ulsoor Road, Bengaluru-560042. … Respondent Pan: Aacts 7373J

iv) of the 1961 Act contra-indication which permits a disallowance of depreciation only in the previous years in which the other allowance is actually allowed. We think the answer is an emphatic 'no' and that the purpose of the words above referred to is totally different. If, as contended for by the assessees, there can be no objection

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. TARALABALU BRUHANMATT, CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

iv) of the 1961 Act contra-indication which permits a disallowance of depreciation only in the previous years in which the other allowance is actually allowed. We think the answer is an emphatic 'no' and that the purpose of the words above referred to is totally different. If, as contended for by the assessees, there can be no objection

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

iv), it will amount to allowance of double deduction. In the present case, the revenue contends that considering the acquisition of assets to fulfill the objects of the trust as application of income of the trust and thereby exempting such income u/s 11, it amounts to allowance of deduction and therefore, depreciation on those assets is not allowable because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

iv), it will amount to allowance of double deduction. In the present case, the revenue contends that considering the acquisition of assets to fulfill the objects of the trust as application of income of the trust and thereby exempting such income u/s 11, it amounts to allowance of deduction and therefore, depreciation on those assets is not allowable because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

iv), it will amount to allowance of double deduction. In the present case, the revenue contends that considering the acquisition of assets to fulfill the objects of the trust as application of income of the trust and thereby exempting such income u/s 11, it amounts to allowance of deduction and therefore, depreciation on those assets is not allowable because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

iv), it will amount to allowance of double deduction. In the present case, the revenue contends that considering the acquisition of assets to fulfill the objects of the trust as application of income of the trust and thereby exempting such income u/s 11, it amounts to allowance of deduction and therefore, depreciation on those assets is not allowable because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

iv), it will amount to allowance of double deduction. In the present case, the revenue contends that considering the acquisition of assets to fulfill the objects of the trust as application of income of the trust and thereby exempting such income u/s 11, it amounts to allowance of deduction and therefore, depreciation on those assets is not allowable because

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

iv), it will amount to allowance of double deduction. In the present case, the revenue contends that considering the acquisition of assets to fulfill the objects of the trust as application of income of the trust and thereby exempting such income u/s 11, it amounts to allowance of deduction and therefore, depreciation on those assets is not allowable because

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S G M EDUCATION TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue and C

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

iv) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court thereafter held that a trust claiming depreciation cannot be equated with a claim for double deduction. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has also made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of Anne

ACIT-(E), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Jason P.Boaz

164 ITR 439 (Raj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Guj.). In CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 (Bom) it was held that in case of charitable trust whose income is exempt under s. 11, excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years