THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

disallowed the claim of depreciation, as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Further, he held that claim of depreciation amounted to double deduction, as the respondent-Trust had availed 100% exemption of Capital Expenditure in the previous year as application of income. Further, more specifically for the assessment year 2009-10, the Assessing Officer also held that

M/S J K CEMENT WORKS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

5. Furniture including slotted angles and ready to assemble parts of furniture, stationery articles including paper, sanitary fittings, cement and other construction materials including bricks, timber, wood, glass, mirrors, roofing materials, stones, tiles and paints, toilet articles. ” Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 18 / 39 8. Having

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PRAVEEN V DODDANAVAR

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

5. Furniture including slotted angles and ready to assemble parts of furniture, stationery articles including paper, sanitary fittings, cement and other construction materials including bricks, timber, wood, glass, mirrors, roofing materials, stones, tiles and paints, toilet articles. ” Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 18 / 39 8. Having

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

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

5. Furniture including slotted angles and ready to assemble parts of furniture, stationery articles including paper, sanitary fittings, cement and other construction materials including bricks, timber, wood, glass, mirrors, roofing materials, stones, tiles and paints, toilet articles. ” Date of Order: 23.03.2017 STRP Nos.100001, 100002, 100003 of 2017 M/s.J.K. Cement Works, Bagalkot Vs. The State of Karnataka 18 / 39 8. Having

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

11(FB) under the Wealth Tax Act, it was held credit for income tax paid in other country in relation to income under Section 10-A will not be available under Section 90(1)(a). Under Section 90(1)(b), the Central - 32 - Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the avoidance

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

11(FB) under the Wealth Tax Act, it was held credit for income tax paid in other country in relation to income under Section 10-A will not be available under Section 90(1)(a). Under Section 90(1)(b), the Central - 32 - Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India for the avoidance

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being

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 of depreciation by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved

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 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

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(1)(a) without appreciating the fact that the issue of application of income more than the income computed does not arise, except in a case where the assessee has incurred huge amount

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SUBEX LTD

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowed the deduction/debit. This fact is - 8 - important. It indicates the double standards adopted by the Department.” 10. Analyzing Section 43A [Un-amended] held that “what triggers the adjustment in the actual cost of the assets, in terms of un-amended Section 43A is the change in the rate of exchange subsequent to the acquisition of asset in foreign currency