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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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. Mr.Parthasarthy, learned

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

15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. The contention that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of India Trade Promotion Organization (Supra) is misconceived. It is also submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KODAVA SAMAJA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Depreciation 4295569 5177126 Excess of Income over Expenditure 6361403 8254493 TOTAL 37820941 44031674 INCOME Rs. By Rentals & Other income 7304192 7007477 By Fee & Other Collections 22835294 26852374 By Bar Section Sales 3011239 3038677 By Sports, Games & Functions Collections 999582 902417 By Guest Room & Roof Garden Rent 836480 976365 By grant from Govt. of Karnataka - 300000 By grant from Kodava Samaja

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is I.T.A.No.106/2016 & I.T.A.No.107/2016 - 14 - no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the `income’ under section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CISCO SYSTEMS

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

depreciation claimed by the assessee and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act of 1961. 15

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 with reference to an enhanced cost), the actual cost to the assessee shall be such an amount as the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner, determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case. 47. Transactions not regarded as transfer Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers:- 15

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent for charitable purpose exceeded 15

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Depreciation under Section 32 of the Act in the hands of the Assessee, being a Charitable Trust and [ii] requirement to comply with the procedure under Section 11[2] of the Act, if the accumulated income not spent for charitable purpose exceeded 15

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11 (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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA PARISHAT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15 to 59 are not pressed into action? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of excess application without appreciating that the provisions of Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only

COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15 to 59 are not pressed into action? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of excess application without appreciating that the provisions of Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15 to 59 are not applicable to the computation of income in respect of Trusts as per 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