Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>ITAT Decision: Assessee's Appeals Allowed, Revenue's Partially Allowed; Directions on Exemption, Depreciation, Expenditure Verification</h1> <h3>ITO, Ward-1, Eluru Versus Agricultural Market Committee Polavaram</h3> ITO, Ward-1, Eluru Versus Agricultural Market Committee Polavaram - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rejection of revised Form No. 10 and denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act.2. Allowance of depreciation claim by the assessee.3. Application of income towards release of funds to the Horticulture Department.Detailed Analysis:1. Rejection of Revised Form No. 10 and Denial of Exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee, a local authority known as Agricultural Market Committee, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 claiming exemption under Sections 10(26AAB) and 11 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) reopened the assessment and issued a notice under Section 148. During scrutiny, the A.O. noticed defects in Form No. 10 filed by the assessee, specifically: (1) the amount of income accumulated was not specified, (2) the period for which the income was accumulated was not mentioned, and (3) the purpose for accumulation was general and not specific. Consequently, the A.O. rejected the form and denied the exemption under Section 11(2).On appeal, the CIT(A) acknowledged that the form mentioned the purpose for accumulation but failed to specify the period and amount, rendering it invalid. The assessee argued that defects in Form No. 10 could be rectified before the completion of assessment proceedings. The ITAT referenced previous decisions, including the ITAT Visakhapatnam bench in similar cases and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association, which allowed rectification of such defects. The ITAT concluded that the A.O. and CIT(A) erred in rejecting the form and denying the exemption, and directed the A.O. to allow the assessee to file a revised Form No. 10 and reconsider the exemption under Section 11.2. Allowance of Depreciation Claim by the Assessee:The assessee claimed depreciation on fixed assets, which the A.O. disallowed, arguing that it would amount to double deduction since the cost of the assets was already allowed as application of income in earlier years. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation claim, referencing judgments that income of a trust should be computed on commercial principles, which include allowing depreciation.The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne and other judicial precedents which support the allowance of depreciation on capital assets for determining the quantum of funds to be applied for charitable purposes. The ITAT directed the A.O. to allow the depreciation after obtaining necessary details from the assessee.3. Application of Income towards Release of Funds to the Horticulture Department:The A.O. disallowed the amount paid to the Horticulture Department, stating that the recipient was not a charitable institution registered under Section 12AA. The assessee contended that the payment was made as per the State Government's directions for the welfare of farmers, which aligns with its charitable objectives.The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to allow the expenditure subject to verification of the purpose. The ITAT referenced the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Giddalore, which recognized that payments made as per government directions for statutory purposes should be considered for the objects of the assessee. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the A.O. to verify the directions from the Director of Horticulture or the Government and allow the claim accordingly.Conclusion:The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes and partly allowed the revenue's appeals for statistical purposes. The A.O. was directed to reconsider the exemption under Section 11 after allowing the assessee to file a revised Form No. 10, allow the depreciation claim after obtaining necessary details, and verify the directions for the expenditure towards the Horticulture Department before allowing the claim.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found