THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

11(a)(2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because

THE BAILHONGAL URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

11(a)(2) as well as Section 12 of the KVAT Act, providing for deduction of input tax credit in respect of the capital goods, both would support the case of the present assessee. We do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate or the premise taken by the authorities below, that merely because

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 of the Act and the assessee has not been granted such exemption by CBDT vide a special order ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT directing the assessing authority to allow the claim of assessee for set off of brought forward excess

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account of disallowance

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KSRTC EMPLOYEES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

11(5) of the Act in order to avail the benefit under Section 10(23AAA) of the Act. Therefore, he disallowed

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ANJUMAN-E-ISLAM

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHUSHRUTHA EDUCATIONAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

disallowance of accumulation/set apart of income under Section Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.862/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Shushrutha Educational Trust 4/27 11

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S AGASTYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani