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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

depreciation is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18

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 is allowable under Section 11 of the Act, and there is no double claim of capital expenditure as held by the Assessing Officer and the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in escorts Ltd., 199 ITR 43 was not applicable and the principles enunciated by this Hon’ble Court in Society of Sisters St.Ann’s 146 ITR 18

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

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

Section 32(1) of the Act was entitled for depreciation with reference to actual cost incurred by it 18 with

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is 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 of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI N LEELA KUMAR

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. 7. This chapter was introduced for the assessment of undisclosed income determined as a result of carrying out search under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

depreciation? A-8. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the donations made to Khandesh Education Society do not attract the provisions of Section 40A(9) of the Act? 7 5. In ITA 133/07, the following two substantial questions of law arise for our consideration: A-9. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the stock transfers made

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

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

The appeals are allowed; the impugned

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,R. NATARAJ

18 which is required to furnish the return of income under sub- section (4C) of section 139, no order making an assessment of the total income or loss of such research association, news agency, association or institution or fund or trust or university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution, shall be made by the Assessing

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is 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 of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is 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 of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is 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 of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is 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 of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is 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 of the Circular No.5XX-6 of 1968, dated