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 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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

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 EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

10 of 1949) with a banking institution as referred to in sub-section (15) of section 45 of the said Act, sanctioned and brought into force by the Central Government under sub-section (7) of section 45 of that Act, of any asset by the banking company to the banking institution. (iv) [***] (v) [***] (vi) [***] (1A) [***] 17 (2) Where

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SECRETARY vs. M/S KARDICOPPAL ESTATE THITHIMATHI

Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation allowance is also to be carried forward under 15 proviso (2) to clause (e) of section 5, effect shall first be given to the provisions of this Section.” 10

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 145A of the Income- tax Act which was inserted with effect from assessment year 1999-2000. The said provision states that the valuation of stock should include the amount of any tax duty, cess or fee - 94 - actually paid or incurred to bring the goods to its present location and condition. The Department has followed a consistent stand

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SASKEN

Appeals are dismissed at the stage of admission

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

15. Sub-section 4 of Section 10A which provides for pro rata exemption, necessarily involving deduction of the profits arising out of domestic sales, is one instance of deduction provided by the amendment. Profits of an eligible unit pertaining to domestic sales would have to enter into the computation under the head “profits and gains from business” in Chapter

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL

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

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The contention that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (Supra) is misconceived. It is also submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KODAVA SAMAJA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Depreciation 4295569 5177126 Excess of Income over Expenditure 6361403 8254493 TOTAL 37820941 44031674 INCOME Rs. By Rentals & Other income 7304192 7007477 By Fee & Other Collections 22835294 26852374 By Bar Section Sales 3011239 3038677 By Sports, Games & Functions Collections 999582 902417 By Guest Room & Roof Garden Rent 836480 976365 By grant from Govt. of Karnataka - 300000 By grant from Kodava Samaja

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

15. Yet another contention urged by Sri Shankar is that the principle of promissory estoppel operates against the revenue for levying tax under Section 115JB, as such levy virtually denies the exemption given to the assessee company under Section 80-IB of the Act and in support of this submission, he has relied on the decision in the case

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

M/S PADMINI PRODUCTS (P) LTD., vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the aforesaid

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

10 to transfer of capital asset. It is further submitted that Section 47(xiii) only takes out succession of transfer of capital asset or intangible asset within the ambit of Section 45 of the Act. It is further submitted that conversion of intangible assets by a firm to a company does not amount to transfer. It is also argued that

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