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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 10 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 10 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 10 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 10 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 10 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

263 of the Act are set-aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 10 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

263 of the Act was not sustainable on both grounds on which it was passed, namely, [i] to disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

263 of the Act was not sustainable on both grounds on which it was passed, namely, [i] to disallow the claim of Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

263 of the Act are set- aside, restoring the assessment order, thus, allowing the depreciation under Section 11 of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 5 9. In all these appeals, the common substantial question of law that arises for our consideration is as under: “Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that depreciation is allowable under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Trust and not having submitted Form No.10 and not having applied 85% of income towards Charitable & Religious purposes is entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). At the outset, he adverted to the provisions 5 of Section 11 and Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’ for short) and contended

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

SRI DAYARAM DAS vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPT Act’, for brevity). The registered office of the said petitioner is said to be at Mumbai. The first petitioner is said to be a member of the governing body of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 is said to have its activities through

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Trust), to the then Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. He contended that the relationship of the State Government with the respondent/Law School is inseparable inasmuch as the State provided the initial corpus fund and also the land (eighteen acres) belonging to Bengaluru University was leased initially for a period of thirty years and subsequently, additional five acres

DR M RAVINDRA VARMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

TRUST AT NO.59 MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-CUM-SECERTARY SRI V P MANOHAR ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA 146 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR N R SQUARE

SMT. H G SHEELA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

TRUST AT NO.59 MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-CUM-SECERTARY SRI V P MANOHAR ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA 146 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR N R SQUARE

SRI KRISHANAMA RAJU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

TRUST AT NO.59 MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-CUM-SECERTARY SRI V P MANOHAR ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA 146 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR N R SQUARE

SRI C THIMMA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

TRUST AT NO.59 MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-CUM-SECERTARY SRI V P MANOHAR ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA 146 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR N R SQUARE