TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the judicial precedence of the aforesaid High Court judgments. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. - ITA Nos. : 2620, 2621/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2018 - SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Assessee : None For the Department : Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the revenue against separate impugned order of even date 24.2.2015, passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) 40, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s143(3) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. In both the appeals the common issues raised are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s objects which are were for charitable purposes, it was granted registration u/s 12AA(1) vide order dated 16.10.2008. The AO noted that assessee has claimed expenditure on account of depreciation of Rs. 1,05,12,224/- for the assessment year 2010-11; and Rs. 1,26,75,940/- for the assessment year 2011-12. According to the AO the assessee is claiming depreciation and capital expenditure both as of application of income and therefore, it amounts to double deduction. After referring to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs Union of India 199 ITR 43, he disallowed the claim of depreciation. He further held that the provision of section 11 r.w.s 12 and 13 do not envisage set off of deficit/excess expenditure of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the current year the reliance was placed on following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation, 164 ITR 439 (Raj) 1987 ii) CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamaber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal, 211 ITR 293 (Guj) 1995 iii) CIT vs. Matrisewa Trust, 242 ITR 20(Mad) 2000 iv) Govindu Naicker Estate vs. ADIT, 248 110 (Bom)2003 v) CIT vs Institute of Banking , 264 ITR 110 (Bom)2003 vi) DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trsut, 197 TAxmann 170 (Delhi) 2011 vii) CIT vs. Gujarat Samaj, 349 ITR 559 (MP)2012 5. Ld. CIT (A) following the precedence of various jurisdictional High Court directed the AO to allow the benefit of carry forward of the deficit or loss. 6. After hearing Ld. DR and on perusal of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
