THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). For this reason, in the previous year to the year with which we are concerned and in which year the depreciation was claimed, the entire expenditure incurred for acquisition of capital assets was treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

disallowance of PF (Rs.6,26,006/-) u/s. 43 B of the Act, after allowing depreciation and expenditure after deducting 3 admitted income worked out the depreciation loss to be carried forward of Rs.1,51,51,332/- by the Assessing Officer was liable to be set aside?” 3. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the first question involved

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT (A) vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Act. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee 4/17 2. In the first round appeal before the learned Tribunal, vide Order Annexure-C dated 8.3.2011, the learned Tribunal held that the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Act. Date of Judgment 19-06-2018, ITA No.239/2011 c/w ITA No.107/2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Agricultural Produce Market Committee 4/17 2. In the first round appeal before the learned Tribunal, vide Order Annexure-C dated 8.3.2011, the learned Tribunal held that the Revisional Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under

M/S NANDI STEELS LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the findings

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

disallowed the claim of set off of brought forward loss. It is also pointed out that proviso to Section 72(i) was omitted by Finance act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000 and for the impugned assessment year 2003-04, the assessee was not required to carry on the business for the purpose of set off of brought forward business loss

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for all previous years including those for which allowance have been granted

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

disallowing a double deduction will be meaningless even in respect of the previous years for which deduction is allowed under S.10(2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for allprevious years including those for which allowance have been granted under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME EXEMPTION vs. M/S CANARA BANK

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] since 06.01.1982. 6. The Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2016-17 claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act and declared 'NIL Income". The Assessee's return was selected for scrutiny and the assessment proceedings culminated in an Assessment Order dated 25.12.2018 passed under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

12A of the Act by following the judgment of this Hon’ble High Court which has not reached finality even though the activities carried out by the assessee comes under amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of IT Act? 2. Whether the tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal preferred by Revenue overlooking the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 199 ITR page 43 Kerala High Court judgment in ITA No.42/2011? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in upholding the decision

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The suggested substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal are quoted herein below for reference : “(1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting faculty teaching charges to Ohio University towards Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner