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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10

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(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 17 Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable in character and as Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 46/47 long as the purpose or purposes mentioned in Form 10 are for achieving the objects of the trust, merely because of non-furnishing of the details, as how the said amount is proposed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

20 - 26. The exemption under Section 11 of the Act is denied in the present case mainly alleging breach of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The payment in the name of professional services fees/administrative services fees made to Sri. Suresh Nagpal and Smt. Geetha Nagpal, the Tribunal having analyzed the matter in depth has given a finding that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION (MAHE)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Assessing Officer. Therefore, He Proceeded With The

10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby approves “Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal” for assessment year 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 for the purpose of - 11 - the said sub-clause subject to the following conditions namely:- (i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

charitable trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of AMITABH BACHAN supra does not support the case of the revenue as in the aforesaid case, the assessee had withdrawn the claim

M/S DESHPANDE EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: S G PANDIT,GEETHA K.B.

charitable purpose’ qua ‘Education’. Albeit, the provision in question in Queen’s Educational Society (supra) was Section 10(23-C) of the Act, it is relevant to produce paragraph 11 of the judgement which assumes significance, which is as under: “11. Thus, the law common to Sections 10(23- C)(iii-ad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10(23)(c) of the Act. - 17 - 16. In the light of these judgments, we have analyzed the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that the assessee is imparting education, as such proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 would not be applicable. At this juncture, it would

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEM) vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10(23)(c) of the Act. - 17 - 16. In the light of these judgments, we have analyzed the facts of the present case. It is not in dispute that the assessee is imparting education, as such proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2008 would not be applicable. At this juncture, it would

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

charitable trust with the object of, inter alia, establishing, maintaining and running of a model law college in India. The BCI Trust formed the National Law School of India Society—which was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, comprising members of the Bar and legal academics to establish a leading national institution for legal studies. The Society approached

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Trust. It is owned by the Government of India and it carries on the operations of shipping. The entire income of the assessee was exempted under Section 10(20) of the Act up to 31.3.2003. It is also not in dispute that the assessee filed an application on 31.3.2006 under Section 12A of the Act claiming exemption w.e.f

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Trust. It is owned by the Government of India and it carries on the operations of shipping. The entire income of the assessee was exempted under Section 10(20) of the Act up to 31.3.2003. It is also not in dispute that the assessee filed an application on 31.3.2006 under Section 12A of the Act claiming exemption w.e.f

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

Trust. It is owned by the Government of India and it carries on the operations of shipping. The entire income of the assessee was exempted under Section 10(20) of the Act up to 31.3.2003. It is also not in dispute that the assessee filed an application on 31.3.2006 under Section 12A of the Act claiming exemption w.e.f