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

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 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

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the 12 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. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

35 (2) (iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under Section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 3. Whether, the tribunal was correct in not following the decision

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

35 his submissions, he placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court in M.S. SHIVANAND vs. KSRTC – AIR 1980 SC 77; COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS MADRAS vs. SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR – AIR 1954 SC 282; BISHAMBHAR DAYAL CHANDRAMOHAN AND OTHERS vs STATE OF UP & OTHERS – (1982) 1 SCC 39; A.K. GOPALAN vs STATE OF MADRAS

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. The responsibilities of DIAGEO to provide the Working Capital, Raw Materials and to take important commercial decisions about the quality, quantity, price, delivery schedule, etc. as given in para 7.1 with no right to CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY to use the Intellectual Property of DIAGEO are also quoted below for ready reference:- “7. DIAGEO INDIA RESPOSIBILITIES 7.1 DIAGEO INDIA

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. The responsibilities of DIAGEO to provide the Working Capital, Raw Materials and to take important commercial decisions about the quality, quantity, price, delivery schedule, etc. as given in para 7.1 with no right to CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY to use the Intellectual Property of DIAGEO are also quoted below for ready reference:- “7. DIAGEO INDIA RESPOSIBILITIES 7.1 DIAGEO INDIA