THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

12) which defines goods as ‘goods’ includes all materials, commodities and articles; . Thus, the meaning of goods assigned under the General Sales Tax Law or the VAT Law is with reference to the goods which are moveable in nature rather than immovable goods. No doubt capital goods are defined under clause (7) of Section 2 of the Act, which includes

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

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

12) which defines goods as ‘goods’ includes all materials, commodities and articles; . Thus, the meaning of goods assigned under the General Sales Tax Law or the VAT Law is with reference to the goods which are moveable in nature rather than immovable goods. No doubt capital goods are defined under clause (7) of Section 2 of the Act, which includes

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12 and 13 of the IT Act, 1961 and the provisions of section 28 to 44 of the Act are not applicable to charitable trust as only application of income during the year is allowable under section 11 of the Act and depreciation

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 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 12

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation can be allowed under Section 32 of the Act. Reliance is placed on Section 11(6) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act No.2, Act 14 with effect from 01.04.2015 to contend that the said amendment applies retrospectively being clarificatory in nature. Learned counsel for the revenue placed reliance on the following Judgments: 12

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AGASTYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12 and 14 of the Act and Section 70 to 79 are not applicable to the Trusts i.e., the assessee in the instant case?” 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

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

Section 47(xiii) of the Act, which read as under: 32. (1) In respect of depreciation of— (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

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

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

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