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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing 11 double deduction contrary to the scheme

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing 11 double deduction contrary to the scheme

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing 11 double deduction contrary to the scheme

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing 11 double deduction contrary to the scheme

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing 11 double deduction contrary to the scheme

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing 11 double deduction contrary to the scheme

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already allowed as application of income in the year of such acquisition. Claim of deduction by way of depreciation on the same capital asset in the subsequent years results in allowing double deduction contrary to the scheme of the Act. It is further

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

charitable institutions, social clubs or for charity do not stand to the test of commercial expediency. In any case, the expenditure under these heads cannot be stated to be exclusively for the purposes of business of the respondent-assessee and to allow it. That apart, the respondent-assessee has failed to place any material, in support of their case

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

charitable purposes and to manage in its own way all affairs in matters of religion. Rights are also given to such denomination or a section of it to acquire and own movable and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with law. The language of the two clauses (b) and (d) of article 26 would at once bring

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

Appeals are allowed; and

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

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

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

Appeals are allowed; and

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

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

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

Appeals are allowed; and

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

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 29 of the Act, but is merely an ‘application of income’ or the compensation paid by the Assessee to the DIAGEO in terms of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007. 33. The two Appellate Authorities therefore clearly fell in error in not correctly, fully and comprehensively appreciating the legal effect of the peculiar nature of business under the State control

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 29 of the Act, but is merely an ‘application of income’ or the compensation paid by the Assessee to the DIAGEO in terms of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007. 33. The two Appellate Authorities therefore clearly fell in error in not correctly, fully and comprehensively appreciating the legal effect of the peculiar nature of business under the State control

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

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

36 :- that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute. But, if the High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of an alternative remedy, it would not be justifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-exhaustion

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

36 :- that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute. But, if the High Court had entertained a petition despite availability of an alternative remedy, it would not be justifiable for the High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-exhaustion

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

charitable entity belonging to the Azim Premji Group, to 4 be held as a part of the corpus of Trust. This gift was contemporaneously disclosed to the stock exchanges and this information was also disseminated to the public at large. This gift was also specifically disclosed in the audited accounts of the petitioner for the year ending 31.03.2014. The face