M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

sections of people without any discrimination of caste, creed race or religion. (c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or half-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without discrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing. (d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates, financial

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S SHIRURU WELFARE TRUST , UDUPI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazthe Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mangaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Shiruru Welfare Trust, Udupi. . Respondent

Sections 70 to 80 of the Income Tax Act deal with carry forward & set off of 'loss' & not excess expenditure. The ITA No.2165/B/17 4 learned CIT (A) erred in not specifying the provisions of the Income Tax Act while directing the AO to allow carry forward of deficit. 4. For these and such other grounds it is urged that

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU 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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

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

260 Bangalore ITAT, wherein similar issue has been dealt with by 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 application of income in the year of its acquisition. The AO took the view that

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 11,12, and 13, only application of income during the year is allowable U/s 11 of the Act and depreciation being a notional expenditure is not allowable. 3 vi) Whether the Hon'ble CIT(A) was correct in allowing the ground of the assessee and dismissing the disallowance made by the AO in respect of the interest free loans

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

Section 11(4) is not intended to explain how the accounts of the business undertaking should be maintained. It is intended only to bring to tax the excess income computed under the provisions of the I.T.Act in respect of business undertaking. 19. The depreciation if it is not allowed as a necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

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

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Section 32 of the Act on the same asset. 6.1.2 The assessee submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its decision in the case of Society of St. Anns 146 ITR 28 (Kar), has taken the view that where capital expenditure on acquisition of a depreciable asset is considered as application of income for charitable purposes, allowing

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

260 Bangalore ITAT, wherein similar issue has been dealt with by 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 application of income in the year of its acquisition. The AO took the view that

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S PEOPLE'S EDUCATATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.1074/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle -1, Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Peoples Education Society, 50 Feet Road, Hanumanthanagar, Bsk 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560 050 .. Respondent Pan : Aaatp3955H Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth, C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Iii Heard On : 31.05.2017 Pronounced On : 09.06.2017 O R D E R Per Lalit Kumar:

260, Jyothi Charitable ITA.1074/Bang/2016 Page - 6 Trust in 60 taxmann.com. 165 Bangalore and ACIT Vs. City Hospital Charitable Trust in 42 ITR(Trib) 583 Bangalore. 06. We have gone through the record and heard the rival contentions. In our view, the issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Director of Income

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE vs. M/S CATHOLIC DIOCESAN SOCIETY , BIDAR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. M/S Catholic Diocesan Society, Opp: Ksrtc Bus Stand Vijaya Nagar Colony, Bidar. . Respondent Pan - Aaaaco515D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri Edmond D’Souza, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-09-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-10-2017 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz:

260 Bangalore ITAT, wherein similar issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal, in the aforesaid case, the assessee claimed depredation and the AO denied depreciation on the ground that at the time of acquiring the relevant capital asset, cost of acquisition was considered as application of income in the year of Its acquisition. The AO took the view that

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 11 of the Act being application of income is not provided under the provisions of the IT Act. He has relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals). 11. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that this issue has been considered by this

M/S PRATHAM BOOKS (TRUST),BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12

section 11 w.e.f. 1.4.2015. He therefore upheld the order of the AO. Page 9 of 12 15. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us in ground No.2. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities erred in not allowing the claim of depreciation, though the assessee had not claimed capital expenditure on the fixed assets

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBBALLI vs. LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST, HUBBALLI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 is dismissed

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

Section 11 of the Act has been considered and held in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan & Gujarati Chairtable Foundation, Poona (supra); by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust & Other (supra) and various decisions of this Tribunal. In the case of Moogambigai