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

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 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

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. 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

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

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

B’, at Bangalore, in ITA Nos. 1075 and 1076/Bang/2014 for Assessment Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 before the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 17(2) Bangalore in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Bangalore vs. Ohio University Christ College, Academy for Management Education, Bangalore. 2. The respondent – assessee is a registered public Charitable Trust under Sec. 12A

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