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 (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 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. 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

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

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 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 TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

12A of the Act and had filed its returns of income claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and, upon scrutiny, examined the transactions/payments made to certain concerns in which the trustees and/or their relatives had substantial interest. 3.1 The Assessing Officer held that the payments made

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. KSRTC EMPLOYEES DEATH-CUM-RETIREMENT BENEFIT

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

2. The assessee in both the appeals is one and the same. These two appeals pertain to the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02. The assessee is KSRTC Employees Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 on 18.09.2000 declaring total income as Nil by claiming exemption 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

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

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION

The appeal stands disposed of

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

2)(h) of the Act and therefore not exempted u/s.11 of the Act and should be treated as AOP and permitting carry forward of depreciation loss as held by the Assessing Officer? ii. Whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that a sum of Rs.2,14,21,029/- treated as the income of the assessee as unaccounted donations (Rs.2

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