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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

13 no way is applicable to Section 11, the claim of depreciation is not under Section 32 of the Act but under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

13 no way is applicable to Section 11, the claim of depreciation is not under Section 32 of the Act but under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

13 no way is applicable to Section 11, the claim of depreciation is not under Section 32 of the Act but under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

13 no way is applicable to Section 11, the claim of depreciation is not under Section 32 of the Act but under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

13 no way is applicable to Section 11, the claim of depreciation is not under Section 32 of the Act but 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

Section 32 of the Act but under normal commercial principles as laid down by the Courts. It is further contended that allowing exemption on the application of income on the capital asset acquired during the relevant year and further, allowing depreciation in the subsequent years, at any stretch of imagination, could not be construed as double deduction. 13

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

depreciation in the hands of the Trust registered under Section 12-A of the Act is no more res integra, no substantial question of law in this regard would arise in these appeals. Insofar as question of carry forward of income or loss of Charitable Trust, this Court, in ITA No.551/2017 disposed of on 14-08-2018 has held

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

depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets or know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets allowable to the predecessor and the successor in the case of succession referred to in clause (xiii), clause (xiiib) and clause (xiv) of section 47 or section

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 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

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 SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13 and therefore, the provisions relation to set-ff of loan from one source against the income from another source, set-off of loss from one head against income from another head and carry forward and set off of loss against the income of subsequent years as envisaged under Section 70 to 79 are also not applicable to the charitable

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

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. Whether the tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal preferred by Revenue overlooking the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 199 ITR page 43 Kerala High Court judgment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11(1).” 13. In CIT v. Trustee of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust (1981) 127 ITR 378, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has accepted the accounts maintained in respect of the trust in conformity with the principles of accountancy for the purposes of determining the income derived from the property held in trust.” 18. In view