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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

10(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under

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(23C) provides exemption in respect of income when it is applied to acquire a capital asset. 17 Subsequently, while computing the income for purposes of these sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions

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 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Depreciation on Goodwill on Slump Sale of Rs 11,26,05,318/-. 2. It has been observed that the amount of Rs.36,34,10,000/- towards commission on Sales debited by the assessee to P & L account without TDS, was not disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in the assessment order. Failure to do so has resulted in short computation

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 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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

34. In that matter also, a similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.306/2015 The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. M/s Krupanidhi Education Trust 9/23 section 32 of the Income Tax Act and not under

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

10(2)(xv) of the I.T.Act? in paragraph three of the judgment observed thus: 20 “3.Considering the matter apart from the authorities, it seems to us impossible that the expenditure could be revenue expenditure. It was clearly not incurred for the purpose of carrying on the concern but it was incurred in setting up the concern with a greater advantage

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. The above examination of the relevant provisions of the Act brings home the point that the IT Act has not provided any separate set of Rules for computing the income of an assessee claiming exemption u/s.11 of the IT Act, 1961. 11. When the Act has not provided any set of Rules for computing the income of an assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. The above examination of the relevant provisions of the Act brings home the point that the IT Act has not provided any separate set of Rules for computing the income of an assessee claiming exemption u/s.11 of the IT Act, 1961. 11. When the Act has not provided any set of Rules for computing the income of an assessee

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

34. In that matter also, a Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.317/2014 Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Another Vs. M/s International Institute of Information Technology 8/22 similar argument, as in the present case, was advanced on behalf of the revenue, namely, that depreciation can be allowed as deduction only under section 32 of the Income

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

34) of the Act. However, the assessee claimed that it had incurred no expenditure in earning the dividend income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Rule 8D(iii) of the Rules and disallowed a sum of Rs.15,80,810/- and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal has affirmed the same. It is also submitted that

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD

In the result, the order of the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

34) of the Act. However, the assessee claimed that it had incurred no expenditure in earning the dividend income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Rule 8D(iii) of the Rules and disallowed a sum of Rs.15,80,810/- and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the tribunal has affirmed the same. It is also submitted that