THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

depreciation of Rs.84,39,457/- in all a sum of Rs.8,63,61,817/- towards Helicopters. On 31.03.2013, the assessment order held that there was a report that the assessee was involved in political activity. The Helicopter was used for political purposes as per media report. The claim was considered by the Assessing Officer under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

1)(a) of the Act. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in disallowing the depreciation which was claimed under section 32 of the Act was that once the capital expenditure is treated as application of income for charitable purposes, the assesses had virtually enjoyed a 100 per cent. write off of the cost of assets and, therefore, the grant

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law in not following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Limited & another vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held when deduction under section

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

131 ITR 451 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction as well as duty to correct all errors in the proceedings under appeals and to issue, if necessary, appropriate directions to the Authorities against whose decisions the appeal is preferred, to dispose of the appeal or any part of the matter afresh unless

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1) (d) and 15% of income set apart in earlier assessment year cannot be construed as income of ht current year and 15% set apart out of the current year income is also excluded from income available for application?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Date of Judgment

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation in respect of capital assets on which capital expenditure has been allowed in its entirety as application of income resulting in double deduction? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing 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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Pr. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY MR. SANMATHI E.I, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST NO.420, CHALASANI MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE-560 066. PAN:AABTC0124G …RESPONDENT THIS I.T.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in law in allowing carry forward of deficit of earlier years for set off against the income of the current year, when there is no such provision is available under Section 11, 12 of the Act and other provisions relating to carry forward

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in law in allowing carry forward of deficit of earlier years for set off against the income of the current year, when there is no such provision is available under Section 11, 12 of the Act and other provisions relating to carry forward

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, UDUPI. …APPELLANTS (BY MR.SANMATHI E I, ADV.) AND: ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION YMDC CAMPUS, NITYANANDA NAGAR, DERALKATTE, MANGALURU, PAN: AAATI3176M. …RESPONDENT (BY MR. S PARTHASARATHI & SMT.SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.958/2017 Pr. Commissioner

COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND / OR SUCH OTHER QUESTIONS OF LAW AS MAY BE FORMULATED BY THE HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMED FIT AND SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED:14/08/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA 897/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DAUGHTERS OF ST.MARY OF PROVIDENCE SOCIETY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) MISSION ROAD BANGALORE 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) BANGALORE …APPELLANTS AND: DAUGHTERS OF ST.MARY OF PROVIDENCE SOCIETY NO.4/1, JOHN ARMSTRONG ROAD, RICHARDS TOWN, BANGALORE-560 084. (BY MR.S.PARTHASARATHI & SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) …RESPONDENT ***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1(3), MANGALORE …APPELLANTS (BY MR.SANMATHI E I, ADV.) AND: M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION, KURANJIBAGH, SULLIA-574 327, PAN AAATA 2239B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI & SMT.SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 2/21 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF INCOME

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in law in allowing carry forward of excess application by setting aside excess expenditure incurred over income amounting to Rs.4,24,57,551/- claimed by assessee? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GREEN WOOD HIGH SCHOOL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of CIT (A) in allowing set-off of excess/expenditure/application pertaining to current assessment year and earlier years against the income of the future assessment year by following its earlier orders? 3. This Court in case

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions relating to set-off of loss from one head against income from another head to subsequent years as envisaged under Sections 70 to 79 of the Act are applicable to the charitable trust i.e., the assessee herein by following

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the provisions relating to set-off of loss from one head against income from another head to subsequent years as envisaged under Sections 70 to 79 of the Act are applicable to the charitable trust i.e., the assessee herein by following