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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

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

THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14 and specific provisions of computation of income under respective heads as envisaged under Section 15 to 59 are not pressed into action? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal were justified in law in allowing assessee’s claim for depreciation

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AGASTYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.957/2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another Vs. Islamic Academy of General Education 4/21 “5. Learned Counsel at the Bar submitted that so far as the issue regarding claim of Depreciation under Section

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.306/2015 The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. M/s Krupanidhi Education Trust 6/23 Depreciation under Section

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.317/2014 Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Another Vs. M/s International Institute of Information Technology 5/22 “5. Learned Counsel at the Bar submitted that so far as the issue regarding claim of Depreciation under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA PARISHAT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.167/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. M/s Rasthrothana Parishat 7/22 from profits and gains of business and section 29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is concerned, the controver[sy is no longer res integra, having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Date of Judgment 14

M/S. HORTICONTRACTS vs. M/S. AGRIHORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS

Bench: K.S.MUDAGAL,H.P.SANDESH

Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act is concerned, the controver[sy is no longer res integra, having been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Date of Judgment 14

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 57 provides for depreciation u/s 32(2). It shows that even in computing the income from other sources, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32(2). This crucial aspect also was not examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the right perspective. Therefore, we find that the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed the deduction of Rs.2

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 57 provides for depreciation u/s 32(2). It shows that even in computing the income from other sources, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32(2). This crucial aspect also was not examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the right perspective. Therefore, we find that the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed the deduction of Rs.2