THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

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

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

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

ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY vs. SMT. VRINDA S RAO

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein submitted that respondent No.1 was registered as a charitable Trust and that it had obtained registration under Section

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11 of the Income-tax Act meant “applied or finally set apart” for the benefit of the trust and that the allocation as made in the assessee’s books was enough to show that the relevant amount was finally set apart or applied for charitable purposes. We are unable to agree. It is not in dispute that there

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE NEW CAMBRIDGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.319/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions & another Vs. The New Cambridge Educational Trust 8/21 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

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

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. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.201/2015 Commissioner

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. G. M. EDUCATION 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 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 15/22 should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

8 - The present appeals are filed suggesting several substantial questions of law. But, we are clearly of the view that the issues involved in the appeals i.e., allowing of depreciation to a Trust and accumulation of income under Section 11(2) of the Act stand settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported

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

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 Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.535/2017 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

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 Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.539/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical

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

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. Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.536/2017 Pr. Commissioner

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

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 Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.548/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Yenepoya

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

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 Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.531/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Medical

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal is dismissed

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 Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani