THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

8 to 10 thereof has held as under : - Xxxxxxx ……. 5.3.3 Further, the CBDT Circular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968 cited by the assessee makes it clear that income should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts also and therefore the commercial principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above referred case

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

8. Section 13(1)(c) of the Act reads thus:- “13.(1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof.- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) in the case of a trust for charitable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEM) vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

8. Section 13(1)(c) of the Act reads thus:- “13.(1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof.- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) in the case of a trust for charitable

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 trust, registration was granted to it under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) on - 5 - 02.06.1986. A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 16.09.2011. According to the DIT (E), the survey revealed that the assessee was running an educational institution on commercial basis and violated 13

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13 only application of income during the year is allowable under section 11 of the Act and depreciation being a notional expenditure is not allowable?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands of Religious

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof- (1) if such trust or institution has been created or established after the commencement of this Act and under the terms of the trust or the rules governing the institution, any part of such income enures, or (ii) if any part of such income or any property of the trust or the institution

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

13(8) of the Act, thereby traversing beyond the scope of the appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances and recorded a perverse finding? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Trust engaged in the business of construction and real estate activities and is registered under Section 12AA

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13. The decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Nachimuthu Industrial Association v. Commissioner of Inome-tax is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the donor – a Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 29/47 charitable trust under the Nachimuthu Industrial Association

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13 and, therefore, the provisions relating to set-off of loss from one source against the income from another source, set- off of loss from one head against income from another head and carry forward and set-off of loss against the income of subsequent years as envisages under Sections 70 to 79 are also not applicable to the charitable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S MANIPAL HOTEL AND

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the 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. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13, there is no provision for computing loss from property held under trust/institution on 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 4/22 account of excess application of income/funds of the trust? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical Relief

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for charitable activities and Date of Judgment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for charitable activities and further failed to notice

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

8 to 10 thereof has held as under : - Xxxxxxx ……. Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.548/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Yenepoya University 15/22 5.3.3 Further, the CBDT Circular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968 cited by the assessee makes it clear that income should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.531/2017 Pr. Commissioner

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for charitable activities and further failed to notice

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 for charitable activities and further failed