THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section

ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY vs. SMT. VRINDA S RAO

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj

Trust deed by which the respondent No.1 was constituted. 10. Section 92 of the CPC is a special provision which provides for securing interest of the general public 9 who are interested in a public charitable

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10 are for achieving the objects of the trust, and that the purposes as well as objects, are both charitable. Merely because more than one purpose has been specified and details about the plan of such expenditure has not been given, the same would not, in our view, be sufficient to deny the benefit under Section

SAVIKRUTHA CHARITABLE TRUST (R) vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition No.65306 Of 2009 (T-It)

charitable purposes but only any attempt to create a perpetuity in favour of the settlor’s descendent the trust is void. (Reliance is placed on Shri Takurji Vs Sukdev Sing 1920, 42 All 494). Therefore, the assessee is imparting the education on the lines of business and no purpose of charity is being served. The assessee is having good profit

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

10 - application of income under section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain [1994] Tax LR 1084 (Bom) the facts were as follows: The assessee was a charitable trust

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10 thereof has held as under : - Xxxxxxx ……. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.201/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Another Vs. Manipal Hotel & restaurant Management College Trust 15/22 5.3.3 Further, the CBDT Circular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968 cited by the assessee makes it clear that income should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. G. M. EDUCATION TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10 thereof has held as under : - Xxxxxxx ……. 5.3.3 Further, the CBDT Circular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968 cited by the assessee makes it clear that income Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.1046/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s G.M.Education Trust 15/22 should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts also

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE NEW CAMBRIDGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.319/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions & another Vs. The New Cambridge Educational Trust 8/21 for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question