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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 11 of the Act, no depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

11. First of all, it is essential to note that by virtue of Entry No.54 of the State List/Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the States have been empowered to legislate law on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers subject to Entry No.92A and 92B of the Union List. The word ‘goods’ appearing in Entry No.54 of the State

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

11. First of all, it is essential to note that by virtue of Entry No.54 of the State List/Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the States have been empowered to legislate law on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers subject to Entry No.92A and 92B of the Union List. The word ‘goods’ appearing in Entry No.54 of the State

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

11. First of all, it is essential to note that by virtue of Entry No.54 of the State List/Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the States have been empowered to legislate law on sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers subject to Entry No.92A and 92B of the Union List. The word ‘goods’ appearing in Entry No.54 of the State

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the `income’ under section 11

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.548/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Yenepoya University 8/22 section 32 of the Income Tax Act was the only section granting benefit of deduction on account of depreciation

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in allowing depreciation