THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

ARUN K THIAGARAJAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the assessing officer and

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

capital gains or factum of investments in two properties. It is pointed out that Section 54(1) was amended by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015, by the which the words 9 ‘constructed a residential house’ were substituted and the words ‘constructed one residential house in India’ was substituted. It is argued that the expression ‘a residential house’ used

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital asset is treated as application of income? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious and Charitable Trust held as under: Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.317/2014 Director of Income

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital assets as well as depreciation are both claimed as application of income in determining surplus/deficit during the year? 6. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the normal provisions of section 28 to 44 of the Act are applicable and depreciation is allowable to charitable trust, when in cases

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S THE BANGALORE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of Bombay High Court as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed is quoted below

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of Bombay High Court as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed is quoted below

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT KAMALA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S MANIPAL HOTEL AND

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 4/21 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion

COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital assets when it amounts to double deduction as the income of the assessee is already exempt and amended provisions of the Act also denies such claim for depreciation by Trust? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

gains, or other sources, the word `income’ should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DAUGHTERS OF ST.MARY OF PROVIDENCE SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion of the said Judgment of Bombay High Court as quoted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and affirmed is quoted below