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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of 19 the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The CIT(A) after calling for 4 the remand report from the Assessing Officer, allowed the appeal on merits and deleted all the additions

SRI NARAYANA GURU PRASADITHA SANGHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

Trust was granted registration under Section 12A of the Act and also approval under Section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act on 17.02.2004 upto 31.03.2005. Same was continued with effect from 01.04.2005 and upto 31.03.2008 by order dated 04.10.2005 (Annexure-E) and thereafter assessee sought for continuance of the approval granted under Section 80G(5)(vi

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

vi) the assessee violated 13 (1) (c) of the Act; and (vii) the original trust deed dated 10.01.1985 was amended by a deed dated 07.03.2005 without the approval of the Department. 4. The assessee filed a reply to the said show- cause notice denying the allegations made against it. The DIT (E), rejecting the reply, confirmed the proposal made

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

M/S MAHESHWARI FOUNDATION vs. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Trust formed on 12.07.2000. It filed an application for renewal of the recognition granted under Section 80G of the Act on 31.03.2008. The authorities called for certain details in connection with the renewal of the recognition and the same was furnished. The assessee was running a Hostel for students, for which charges were collected for both boarding and lodging. According

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

VI] Lastly, Mr. Shankar also submitted that as an alternative, the said ‘distributable surplus’ paid to DIAGEO should be allowed as a ‘trading loss’ under Sections 28/29 of the Act as the said money has not been retained by the Assessee nor it has accrued as savings to the Assessee and having lost that amount in favour of the DIAGEO

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

VI] Lastly, Mr. Shankar also submitted that as an alternative, the said ‘distributable surplus’ paid to DIAGEO should be allowed as a ‘trading loss’ under Sections 28/29 of the Act as the said money has not been retained by the Assessee nor it has accrued as savings to the Assessee and having lost that amount in favour of the DIAGEO

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

23 :- drawn. Within seven days thereafter, paper publication was made. That no prejudice has been caused to the appellants, as the appellants had, for the purpose of seeking the loan, mortgaged the coffee estate and in the absence of repayment, the Bank was justified in recovering the outstanding dues by taking recourse under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, even

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

23 :- drawn. Within seven days thereafter, paper publication was made. That no prejudice has been caused to the appellants, as the appellants had, for the purpose of seeking the loan, mortgaged the coffee estate and in the absence of repayment, the Bank was justified in recovering the outstanding dues by taking recourse under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, even