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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA PARISHAT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on capital assets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.92 /2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Another Vs. M/s Manipal Academy of Higher Education 4/22 3. Whether on the facts

COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forwards and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.168/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Rasthrothana Parishat 4/22 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain [1994] Tax LR 1084 (Bom) the facts were as follows: The assessee was a charitable trust. It was registered as a public charitable trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income- tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DOMINICIAN SISTERS OF

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

80 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 038. …RESPONDENT Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.326/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Dominician Sisters of Presentation 2/21 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 08.09.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2163/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on capital assets when it amounts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE PUBLIC CHARTIBALE TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

charitable in nature. It has also not been mentioned or clarified in the order as to why on the same objects the trust had been granted exemption under Section 80(G) earlier, and it was being denied at this stage. 5

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

5), where the acquisition of the land was by bequest or inheritance, an amount as specified in Section 72 shall be paid and where the acquisition was otherwise than by bequest or inheritance, no amount shall be paid. 79-B. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons.- (1) With effect on and from the date of commencement

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

5), where the acquisition of the land was by bequest or inheritance, an amount as specified in Section 72 shall be paid and where the acquisition was otherwise than by bequest or inheritance, no amount shall be paid. 79-B. Prohibition of holding agricultural land by certain persons.- (1) With effect on and from the date of commencement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on capital assets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on capital assets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANGALORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on capital assets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit under section 11(1)(a) of the Act? 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits that the controversy raised in the present appeal is covered by a decision of this Court

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. C B C I SOCIETY FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Trust was primarily for the benefit of the catholic community. It is further submitted by referring to the order passed by the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) that from the perusal of the admission list of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09, it is evident that 80% of the total number of students belong to Catholic Christian

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. D.R. RANKA CHARITABLE TRUST

Appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

80-G was rejected. The same was challenged before the Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal by its order dated 18-2-2010 expressed a doubt 3 as to whether the assessee is entitled even for the benefit under Section 11. Therefore, the matter was remanded. Consequently, the Commissioner having re-considered the matter cancelled the registration under section

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

5 – Samithi submitted that Section 27 of the old Act empowers the Government to act on the report of the Enquiry Committee and take over the management of the institution or pass such other order as may be deemed fit. The act of appointing the Administrator does not in any way impair the rights of the Mutt or its denomination