9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 901 - HC - Income TaxEntitled to a claim of deduction on account of depreciation in respect of the assets which has been acquired and used for the purpose of activities of the trust - Held that - Amount spent on acquiring assets are taken as application of income for the purposes of Section 11 of the Act and the depreciation claimed thereafter on the same amount i.e. the value of fixed assets during the subsequent years is being granted on the user of the same. There is no question of double deduction in allowing of depreciation in respect of assets acquired and used by the Trusts. See M/s.Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (2015 (6) TMI 684 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) and The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of India 2015 (1) TMI 480 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeals challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding depreciation claim for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Analysis: 1. The main issue in this case revolves around the claim of depreciation by a charitable trust for assets used in its activities. The Tribunal's order dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the decision of the CIT(A) and the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in a previous case. 2. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim of depreciation, citing the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection case, which the Revenue contested by referring to the Escorts Ltd. case. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that a subsequent case, DIT (E) Vs. G.K.R. Charities, supported the initial ruling, and therefore, the Tribunal followed the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. 3. The Revenue further argued for the appeal's admission based on a similar case pending before the court, but the respondents highlighted previous dismissals of Revenue's appeals in comparable cases, emphasizing the consistent stance of the court on the issue of depreciation claim by trusts. The court concluded that there was no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal, ultimately dismissing it without costs.
|
