Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 244 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute on 9 July, 1992

Ito (E) - 2(2), Mumbai vs Punjab Kesari Charitable Trust, Mumbai on 16 January, 2019

" 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 463 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of me Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depredation could not be taken into account ITA 5578/Mum/2017 because full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the Income Tax Officer stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by, the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Consequently, Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assesses and against, the department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Society Of Saint Ursula., Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 January, 2014

"13. The only other issue remaining by way of Grounds of Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 relate to the denial of assessee's claim of depreciation of Rs.42,38,718/- on the assets. The CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Framjee Cawsjee Institute, 109 CTR 463 (Bom). Nothing to the contrary has been argued by the Revenue before us and therefore, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we find that the CIT(A) made no mistake in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs.42,38,718/-. Thus, Grounds of Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 are also dismissed".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito(E), Jaipur vs Mayura Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur on 27 October, 2017

In view of the discussions made above, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (Supra) and in CIT v. Institute of Banking personnel (Supra). The substantial question framed in the instant matter, thus, is answered in the terms that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed depreciation claimed by the assessee on capital assets for which capital expenditure was already given in the year under consideration.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dcit (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs Society Of Congregation Of Franciscan ... on 20 December, 2018

"4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v, Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 109 CTR 483 (Bom). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assesses was the Trust It derived its Income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The appeal was rejected, This Tribunal, 6 ITA No. 5089/M/2017 A.Y.2009-10 however, took the view that when the Income Tax Officer stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account, this view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by, the Bombay High Court in the above judgment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Dcit (Exemptions), Circle-2,, ... vs Sardar Patel Education Trust,, Anand on 30 August, 2018

4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax 10 ITA No. 424/Ahd/2017 . A.Y. 2012-13 (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The Appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above Judgment. Consequently, Question No. 2 is answered in the Affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Indian Institute Of Management & ... vs Acit, Ghaziabad on 30 April, 2019

"4. Question No.2 herein is identical to the question / which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The 12 ITA No.3199/Del./2015 assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. . The Appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above Judgment. Consequently, Question No.2 is answered in the Affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dcit (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs Mohd Haji Saboo Sidik Institution, ... on 16 April, 2018

4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust. The ITO held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The Appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above Judgment. Consequently, Question No. 2 is answered in the Affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer (E) 2(3), Mumbai vs Society Of Franciscan Brothers, Mumbai on 30 January, 2019

04 Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 1C9 CTR 463 (Born). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust, The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal beforethe Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the Income Tax Officer stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by, the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Consequently, Question No. 2/s answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against, the department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer(E)-2(3), Mumbai vs Society Of Congregation Of Franciscan ... on 30 January, 2019

04 Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question which was raised before the Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (1993) 1C9 CTR 463 (Born). In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable assets. The assessee took into account depreciation on those assets in computing the income of the Trust, The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation could not be taken into account because, full capital expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal beforethe Assistant Appellate Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the Income Tax Officer stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as 'application of income' of the Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by, the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Hence, Question No. 2 is covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Consequently, Question No. 2/s answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against, the department.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs Mr. Sunil Bhandari on 16 January, 2015

In view of the discussions made above, we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute (supra) and in CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel (supra). The substantial question framed in the instant matter, thus, is answered in the terms that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly allowed depreciation claimed by the assessee on capital assets for which capital expenditure was already given in the year under consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next