THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

1) of the Act, depreciation is allowable as application of income. Further relying upon the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, it was contended in the appeals that sub- Section (6) was inserted to Section 11 of the Act, wherein from the assessment year 2015-2016, the depreciation cannot be claimed as an application of income under Section

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

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

B’, at Bangalore, in ITA Nos. 1075 and 1076/Bang/2014 for Assessment Year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 before the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 17(2) Bangalore in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Bangalore vs. Ohio University Christ College, Academy for Management Education, Bangalore. 2. The respondent – assessee is a registered public Charitable Trust under Sec. 12A

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

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. 2. The Deputy Director of Income-Tax, (Exemptions), C.R.Building, Queens Road, Bangalore. ...APPELLANTS (Common in both) (By Sri.G.Kamaladhar, Adv. for Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv.) AND : KSRTC Employees Death-Cum- Retirement Benefit Fund, Transport House, - 2 - Central Offices, Shanthinagar, Bangalore. …RESPONDENT (Common in both) (By Sri.S.Parthasarathi, Adv.) . . . . I.T.A. No.242/2007 is filed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C R BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, C R BUILDING ATTAVARA, MANGALORE ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K V ARAVIND & SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.) AND ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION ® NITHYANANDA NAGAR, DERALAKATTE MANGALORE ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME

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

B’ BENCH, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO.ITA NO.822/BANG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEL AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the Revenue. Mr.K.K.Chythanya, learned counsel for the assessee