Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (3.30 seconds)
Satya Sai Trust, M.P. , Bhopal vs Department Of Income Tax on 16 August, 2011 cites

Dy. Dit vs Raunaq Education Foundation on 30 May, 2005

This view is fortified by the ratio laid down in DIT vs. Bagri Foundation (2010) 192 Taxman 309 (Del), the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1) (SC) and the ratio laid down in SRMMCTM Tirupani Trust (230 ITR 636) (SC). In order to satisfy the requirement of sec. 11 (2) (b), the investment must 21 necessarily come out to the current year's income. An investment made in the past obviously cannot satisfy this requirement.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Programme For Community Organisation on 25 October, 1996

This view is fortified by the ratio laid down in DIT vs. Bagri Foundation (2010) 192 Taxman 309 (Del), the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Programme for Community Organisation (248 ITR 1) (SC) and the ratio laid down in SRMMCTM Tirupani Trust (230 ITR 636) (SC). In order to satisfy the requirement of sec. 11 (2) (b), the investment must 21 necessarily come out to the current year's income. An investment made in the past obviously cannot satisfy this requirement.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 111 - Full Document

C.I.T. vs Indian National Theatre Trust on 13 November, 2007

This view is further fortified from the decision in CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust (305 ITR 149) (Del). Therefore, in view of uncontroverted finding that the respective assessee duly complied with sec. 11 (2) of the Act and the depreciation was claimed after application of more than 85% of income, therefore, we find no infirmity in the stand of the ld. CIT(A), consequently, these appeals of the Revenue are having no merit, therefore, dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 19 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 Next