THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25 amount does not excluded from

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

33, sub-section (4) of section 35 or the second proviso to clause (ix) of sub-section (1) of section 36, as the case may be, shall not apply in relation to any such allowance or deduction; (ii) no loss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of 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

33. The AO while dealing with the question A4 in this appeal treated the donation made by the assessee to the Khandesh Education Society as a contribution contemplated by Section 40A(9) of the Act. In other words, the AO disallowed the deduction of the donation made to Khandesh Education Society holding it as a contribution contemplated by Section

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, all questions are answered against the

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation of earlier years, in which event, it only amounts that the assessee is being given a benefit much more than the ceiling contemplated under section 80A of the Act. If that is so, it is an indirect way of defeating the purpose and object of section 80A[2] of the 27 Act and therefore also we cannot accept

M/S J K INDUSTRIES LTD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

depreciation is a factor which is always to be taken into consideration and is in no way regulated or controlled by the provisions of section 80HHC of the Act. 33

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMCO POWER SYSTEMS LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

33,333/- (being 1/6th of Rs.5.00 crores claimed as deduction under Section 35AB of the Act) in respect of the expenditure incurred for acquiring technical know-how; (2) denial of set-off of brought forward business loss on the ground 8 that the provisions of Section 79(a) of the Act are not complied. By an order dated 09.03.2007 passed