Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.54 seconds)
Ito, Wd-1(3), Kolkata, Kolkata vs The Institute Of Indian Foundrymen, ... on 12 September, 2018
cites
Section 199 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Lissie Medical Institutions vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 12 December, 2017
It may be mentioned that most of the High Courts have taken the aforesaid view
with only exception thereto by the High Court of Kerala which has taken a
contrary view in 'Lissie Medical Institutions v. Commissioner of Income Tax'.
Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 194A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
C.I.T.-Iii,Pune vs Rajasthan And Gujarati Charitable ... on 13 December, 2017
17. We also rely of the judgment of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of
CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poorna, (2017) (12) TMI
1067 (SC) wherein it was held as follows:
The Finance Act, 2018
Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Framjee Cawasjee Institute on 9 July, 1992
"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."
B.S.Consultancy Services, North 24 ... vs Ito, Ward -51(1) Kol., Kolkata on 6 September, 2017
8. We note that these timing differences in recognition of revenue with
corresponding TDS, will get adjusted in future years and hence there is no tax
evasion on the part of the assessee. Moreover, the details of the impugned
addition at Rs.1,93,02,985/- made by the AO is not available, that is, on what
basis he worked out the addition at Rs.1,93,02,985/-, therefore, we do not agree
with the addition made by assessing officer. Apart from this, we rely of the
judgment of the coordinate Bench on the same issue in the case of B.S.
Consultancy Services Vs. ITO, ITA no.345/Kol/2017 order dated 06.09.2017,
wherein it was held as follows:
1