THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee, laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Gains chargeable to tax under Section 45 of the Act are, denied to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and the same is enumerated as Income in Section

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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

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

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 COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assesses had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent. write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant of depreciation would amount to giving double benefit to the assessee. Though it appears that in most of these cases, the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals) had affirmed

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.960/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. Islamic Academy

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT KAMALA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.880/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. Smt.Kamala and Sri.Venkappa M Agadi 5/21 “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S MANIPAL HOTEL AND

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.13 /2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Manipal Hotel and Restaurant Management College Trust 5/21 “In the said judgment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.537/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical Relief Society of South Kanara 5/21 “In the said judgment, [Bombay

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.371/2014 Commissioner of Income Tax & Another

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.534/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical Relief Society of South Kanara 5/21 “In the said judgment, [Bombay

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time, however, expenditure incurred out of the above sources cannot be termed as application of funds out of the income earned in a particular assessment year inasmuch as loan borrowed does not fall under the category of income earned

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.964/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for ready reference. “In the said judgment, [Bombay High Court] the contention of the Department predicated on double Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.958/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Another

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital expenditure sourced out of borrowed or corpus donations or 15% of income set apart over a period of time and even otherwise expenditure incurred out of the above sources cannot be termed as application of funds out of the income earned in a particular assessment year inasmuch as loan borrowed does not fall under the category of income earned

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

capital over and above the income so as to claim excess application /deficit/loss to be carried forward to subsequent assessment years even in the case of excess application by virtue of borrowed/funds/corpus fund donations set apart of earlier years, the income of the assessee cannot be reverted to loss but at best it can be made nil?” 3. This Court