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

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

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. 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. 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 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

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

10. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Charitable Trust (supra), the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as under : Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 24/47 ”The Tribunal had rightly taken the view that it was not correct

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

25,714/- as exempt from income tax under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The Government Notification exempting the assessee’s income under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act was not produced before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he proceeded with the - 3 - assessment on the premise that the Assessee is not having any exemption. He assessed the total

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

25. In the case of Bhatnagar Educational Trust (supra), in a survey conducted, it was prima facie found that the Trust was not carrying on its activities in accordance with the Objects of the trust, the answers given in the questionnaire by the managers to the trust therein, reflected the extent of misuse of the status enjoyed by the Trust

M/S CUTCHI MEMON UNION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

25,983/- under Section 24(a) of the Act on the ground that the income of the trust has to be computed in a commercial manner and not as per the Act. The claim for depreciation was also disallowed. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 27.04.2012, by placing

PRALAKSHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

10(23C) OR ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 OR ANY OTHER LAW APPLICABLE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.ADITYA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY TRANSPORT SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICERS, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR

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

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 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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust out of the money when received by him. Once it is held that the amount was received as his professional income, the assessee is clearly liable to pay tax thereon. In our opinion, the correct answer to the question referred to the High Court is that the amount of Rs.32,500 received by the assessee was professional income

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust out of the money when received by him. Once it is held that the amount was received as his professional income, the assessee is clearly liable to pay tax thereon. In our opinion, the correct answer to the question referred to the High Court is that the amount of Rs.32,500 received by the assessee was professional income