M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

depreciation is claimed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 32; and (c) which was or has been used for the purposes of business, is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed and the moneys payable in respect of such building, machinery, plant or furniture, as the case may be, together with 16 the amount of scrap value

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for all previous years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical and unjustified

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

12A of the Act vide order dated 28.10.2011 and therefore, the income of the assessee can be computed under the normal provisions of the Act. The assessing officer denied the exemption to the assessee by invoking the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act and concluded the assessment. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Commissioner

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Act. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee 4/17 2. In the first round appeal before the learned Tribunal, vide Order Annexure-C dated 8.3.2011, the learned Tribunal held that the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Act. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee 4/17 2. In the first round appeal before the learned Tribunal, vide Order Annexure-C dated 8.3.2011, the learned Tribunal held that the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation claimed by the assessee ignoring the fact that the entire cost of asset has been fully allowed as application of income under Section 12A of IT Act? 2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation claimed by the assessee ignoring the fact that the entire cost of asset has been fully allowed as application of income under section 12A of I.T.Act? 2

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. ISKCON CHARITIES

In the result, we do not find any merit in these appeals

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

2) could be issued i.e., upto 31.03.2007 and the assessment had to be completed under Section 143(3) of the Act before 31.12.2006 as required under Section 153 of the Act. However, notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2007 without completion of the proceeding pending on the basis of the return, which was already filed

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT directing the assessing authority to allow the claim of assessee for set off of brought forward excess application of income/loss of income/loss of income for earlier years by relying upon the decision of this Hon’ble Court

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

12A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court which has not reached finality even though the activities carried out by the assessee comes under amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

2)(h) of the Act and therefore not exempted u/s.11 of the Act and should be treated as AOP and permitting carry forward of depreciation loss as held by the Assessing Officer? ii. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that a sum of Rs.2,14,21,029/- treated as the income of the assessee as unaccounted donations (Rs.2