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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

37. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur Vs. Thakar Das Bhargava [1960] 60 ITR 301 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the case of a leading Advocate who reluctantly accepted to appear in a Criminal trial on the condition that the monies or Fees paid to him will be paid for a Charitable Trust

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 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 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

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 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

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

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

37 member enquiry. The report dated 4.1.2002, he submitted, has nothing to do with the enquiry that was initiated in pursuance of the order of this court dated 19.07.1996. In short, it was submitted that the Enquiry Committee was re-constituted for the reasons and therefore, its re-constitution cannot be treated as a new committee and / or initiation

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-1 vs. M/S RASHTREEYA SIKSHANA SAMITHI TRUST

In the result grounds 3 to 5 of assessee

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 19612. It has obtained approval under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. For A.Y.2012-13, assessee filed returns of income declaring income as nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. Assessee filed revised returns. The difference between