THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not following the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions vs.CIT, Kochi in ITA No.42 of 2011 wherein the other judicial pronouncements by various high courts were held to be not applicable holding that the issue of double deduction

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

2 is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department." After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states the principles of law and there is no need to interfere with the same.” The aforesaid decision

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 ITR 378, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has accepted the accounts maintained in respect of the trust in conformity with Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 40/47 the principles of accountancy for the purposes of determining the income derived from the property held in trust

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.201/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Another Vs. Manipal Hotel & restaurant Management College Trust

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 11, 12 and 13? Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani Education Trust 4/27 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of excess application of income as claimed

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.394/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions & another Vs. M/s Sackhumvit Trust 4/22 in law dismissing Revenue’s appeal by holding that assessee is entitled to claim carry forward of excess application/expenditure/loss without appreciating the fact that

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. G. M. EDUCATION TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

127 [SC], by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the Bombay High Court in ‘Commissioner of Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)’ [2003] Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.1046/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s G.M.Education Trust 5/22 131 Taxman 386 [Bom.]. The relevant portion

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Section 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, even though the entire cost of Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.539/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, even though the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as Date of Judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as Date of Judgment

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Section 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, even though the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation on assets put into use during the accounting year relevant to assessment year, eventhough the entire cost of these assets has been claimed by the assessee as application of income

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside disallowance of accumulation/set apart of income under Section Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.862/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Shushrutha Educational Trust 4/27 11(1)(a) without appreciating the fact that the issue