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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 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 under

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

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Charitable Institutions, supra, wherein the Division Bench considering Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has held that it is only the income from such investment or deposit which has been made in violation of Section 11(5) of the Act that is liable to be taxed and that the violation under Section 13(1)(d) does not tantamount

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

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

SRI SRINIVASA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: G.NARENDAR,N.KUMAR

charitable services and in pursuance of the same, the first petitioner has established the second petitioner to provide the quality based medical education. The petitioner institution was even granted affiliation by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bengaluru to start the MBBS Course. 4 The Medical Council of India has granted permission on 21.06.2011 to the second petitioner

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S A S KUPPARAJU BROTHERS

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Charitable Foundation Trust. The above appeals are pertaining to the assessment years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002. The Assessing Officer did not give the benefit of Sections 10(22

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

22) of the act w.e.f. 1-4-1999 by the Finance Act No.2/1998. The assessee has made efforts to retain the benefit of exemption in respect of its income under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the act and for such purpose, it had made an application under Section

RAJARAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: G.NARENDAR,N.KUMAR

Charitable and Educational Trust. The Medical Council of India by its order dated 13.8.2010 granted recognition under Section 11 (2) of the Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter to as ‘the Act’) to the petitioner for an intake of 100 MBBS seats. The petitioner had the infrastructure and other facilities for an intake of 100 students for MBBS course

SRI DAYARAM DAS vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPT Act’, for brevity). The registered office of the said petitioner is said to be at Mumbai. The first petitioner is said to be a member of the governing body of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 is said to have its activities through

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

10 SCC 755. 17.1 On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that Article 26 of the Constitution protects the freedom of every religious denomination to manage its religious affairs. He submitted the matadhipathi manages the properties and assets of a religious institution on behalf of the members of denomination as their representative. As the properties that he manages

A H MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna Writ Petition No.16323 Of 2021 (Lb-Res) C/W Writ Petition No.51640 Of 2017 (Lb- Tax) Writ Petition No.19423 Of 2021 (Lb- Tax) Writ Petition No.20385 Of 2021 (Lb- Res) Writ Petition No.21130 Of 2021 (Lb- Tax) In Writ Petition No.16323 Of 2021 Between: 1. Indus Trust Having Its Registered Office At Billapura Cross, Sarjapura, Bengaluru - 562 125 Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer Mr V.S.Kumar, S/O Late Rama Rao C., Aged About 59 Years. 2. Indus International School Private Limited (Iispl) Having Its Registered Office At Billapura Cross, Sarjapur, Bengaluru - 562 125 Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer, Mr V.S.Kumar

CHARITABLE TRUST v. THE SAMANDUR 21 GRAMA PRANCHAYAT AND ANOTHER2 interpreting exemption under Rule 6(c) of the Rules has held as follows: “5. Indisputably, Sec. 199 of the Act controls the levy of taxes, rate etc., by Grama Panchayats. sub.Sec. (1) states that the manner and subject to such exemptions, as may be prescribed, the Grama Panchayat could levy