PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

12A and has not violated section 13. Further there is no private gain and all the funds are ploughed back only into education. Thus accumulations and application are as per the provisions of section 11. Therefore, exemption under section 11 and 12 has to be allowed to the assessee. We hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s.11

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Act. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee 4/17 2. In the first round appeal before the learned Tribunal, vide Order Annexure-C dated 8.3.2011, the learned Tribunal held that the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Act. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee 4/17 2. In the first round appeal before the learned Tribunal, vide Order Annexure-C dated 8.3.2011, the learned Tribunal held that the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of IT Act? 2. Whether the tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal preferred by Revenue overlooking the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 199 ITR page 43 Kerala High Court judgment in ITA No.42/2011? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in upholding the decision

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of the trust. This contention appears

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

gains of business or profession". Net receipt after deducting all the necessary expenditure of the trust (sic). 10. There is a broad agreement on this proposition. But still the contention for the Revenue is that the depreciation allowance being a notional income (expenditure ?) cannot be allowed to be debited to the expenditure account of 9 the trust. This contention appears

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

gain admission to the institution on account of horizontal reservation for Karnataka students. That -: 25 :- petitioners reliance on AIIMS Students’ Union vs. AIIMS, [(2002) 1 SCC 428], (AIIMS Students’ Union) is misplaced and not applicable to the instant case, as AIIMS is an institution created by an Act of Parliament, while the respondent/Law School is a creation of the Karnataka

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A as a charitable institution. It is also not disputed that the activities of the assessee are Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 14/47 charitable. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in Hanover, Germany