THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S EXIDE LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

disallowance of surplus from shareholders account treated as income from other sources by assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holder’s 6 Account and share Holder’s account is to be consolidated and net surplus only to be taxed as income from business without appreciating that income from life insurance business is treated differently when compared

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI SCORPIO ENGINEERING

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

disallowance would be made if after deduction of tax during the previous 7 year, the same has been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 139. 1’his has been given retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. 16.5:Of course. the Legislature has given the effect

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

disallowed on the ground that the DTAA with USA and Canada shows that the claim is admissible only for the taxes paid under Income Tax Act in India and Federal tax in USA and Canada. In coming to the said conclusion the authorities have failed to notice Section 91 of the Act. Statutorily the assessee would be entitled to deduction

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

199) 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee Sri.A.Shankar would contend that Chapter – III of the Act and Chapter – IV of the Act play in different fields. Sections 11 to 13(B) covered under Chapter – III of the Act, governs the manner of computation of total income and exemption by Charitable Trusts. Sections

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ENVISIONS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET SARAN

disallowed the accumulation holding the purpose stated was vague and thus the benefit of Section 11(2) of the Act was denied. Reliance in this regard was placed by the learned Assessing Officer on the decision of the Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs TRUSTEES OF SINGHANIA CHARITABLE TRUST, (1993) 199

M/S SUTURES INDIA PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result the substantial questions of law are

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

199 ITD 107 (Delhi)? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that at the time of filing audit report in form 10CCB along with the return was mandatory in nature on the facts and circumstances of the case?". 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a private limited company

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

199 ITR 43 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held when deduction under section 35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

199 ITR 43 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held when deduction under Section 35 (2) (iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under Section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowing the assessee’s claim of carry forward of current year’s loss and set off of excess deficit pertaining to earlier