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

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 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. 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 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

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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ASTRA ZENECA PHARMA

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

depreciation 8 and notional interest, which would amount to setting aside the entire order of assessment. It was further held that since, there was no order to pass a fresh order of assessment, therefore, the order giving effect to the findings of the tribunal was not barred by limitation under Section 153(2A) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid order

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 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

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

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 Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.317/2014 Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Another Vs. M/s International Institute of Information Technology 18/22 trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

264 ITR 110 (Bombay) for allowing carry forward and set off of deficit of earlier years, even though said decision was not pursued in further appeal in view of nil tax effect involved, and as per Section 268A the said decision is not binding in respect of this assessee? 2.3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

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

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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RASTHROTHANA PARISHAT

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