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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Learned counsel Sri. K.V. Aravind appearing for the revenue would contend that the depreciation is not allowable as deduction in computing the total income of a charitable trust under Section 11 of the Act, as the amount spent on the capital asset is already

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10(2)(xiv) of the 1922 Act or under Section 32(1)(ii) and Section 35(2)(iv) of the 1965 Act. It was the case of the assessee claiming a specified percentage of the written down value of the asset as depreciation besides claiming deduction in 5 consecutive years of the expenditure incurred on the acquisition of the capital

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14 (XL-35) dated 11.4.1955 states to the effect that it is the duty of the assessing officer to make available to the assessee any legitimate and legal tax relief to which the assessee is entitled, but has omitted to claim for one reason or another. Merely because the assessee in the return filed under Section

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

14 (XL-35) dated 11.4.1955 states to the effect that it is the duty of the assessing officer to make available to the assessee any legitimate and legal tax relief to which the assessee is entitled, but has omitted to claim for one reason or another. Merely because the assessee in the return filed under Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

10 lease and finance lease to claim depreciation. He has also argued that the assessing officer has taken into account all the evidence on record while passing the assessment order, that too, after being satisfied with the explanations offered by the assessee and therefore, his prayer is that the question of interference with the order passed by the Income

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Depreciation) Expenditure as per Income and Expenditure Account-Donation Less: Capital Expenditure 8,51,352 38,94,805 48,97,84,885 3,07,77,395 45,90,07,490 Deduction under Chapter VIA u/s 80IB(10) 573,968,569 Taxable Income NIL 10. Thus, from perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer, it is evident that

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

M/S SANKHLA POLYMERS (P) LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)

In the result, the appeal relating to the assessment

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

10 or section 10A or section 10B or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account; or (iii) the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account. Explanation – For the purposes of this clause – (a) the loss shall not include depreciation

M/S MANYATA PROMOTERS PVT LTD vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result, the writ petition is rejected

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice L Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.56279 Of 2015 (Lb-Bbmp) Between: M/S.Manyata Promoters Pvt. Ltd., A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 & Having Its Office At First Floor, Classic Court No.9/1, Richmond Road, Bangalore 560 025 Represented By Its Authorized Signatory, Mr.B S Mohan.

depreciation at such rate, as may be prescribed, depending on the age of a building. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “Unit Area Value” means an average rate of expected returns from the property per sq.ft., per month determined by the Commissioner, Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on the basis of the average market rate determined through mass appraisal method

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AGASTYA

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 COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

10 - application of income under 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

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL 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

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

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

depreciable assets in the revenue field, the gains arising as a result of sale thereof will have to be necessarily treated in the revenue field either under Section 28 or Section 56 and not as capital gains; the provisions of Section 56 read with Section 10[3] are quite apposite. Since there was no findings recorded on this aspect

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