TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue - in favour of assessee. Decision in Escorts Ltd vs Union of India (1992 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT) distinguished. Decision in Escorts Ltd not to be applicable to the situation where depreciation was claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purposes of charitable objects. - I.T.A.Nos.931 & 932/Mds/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - SHRI N.S. SAINI, AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JJ. Appellant by : Shri V.P.Thangadurai, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Vikramaditya, Jt. CIT O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These are the appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the CIT(A)-XII, Chennai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts supra) were totally different from the assessee's case and that decision is not applicable in the instant case as held in. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered the decision in CIT Vs. M/s. Tiny Tots Education Society, 2010- TlOL-550- High Court-P :H-IT as well as CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli 330 ITR 16 (P :H) wherein the facts are similar to that of the assessee's case and wherein the Escorts case (supra) was specifically discussed and distinguished. The Court held that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. was not applicable to the situation where depreciation was claimed by a charitable institution in determining percentage of funds applied for the purposes of charitable objects. 3. The learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing. 4. The only issue involved in both the years under consideration is that the CIT(A) erred in holding that capital expenditure is to be treated as application of income of the Trust as per section 11 and any further allowance by way of depreciation or otherwise would amount to extra deduction or double deduction which is not permitted in the Income-tax Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer excluded the assessee s claim of depreciation while computing the application of 85% of the Trust s income as entire capital expenditure itself was treated as application of income. According to the Assessing Officer, the allowance of depreciation u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come and allowing of depreciation to the assessee would amount to double deduction. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for the very same reason. We find that the Hon'ble P H High Court in the case of Market Committee, Pipli(supra) has held as under: 10. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assesse being exempt, the assesse is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue. The judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue. Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd and another (supra) is distinguishable for the above reasons. It can not be held that double benefit is given in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of Sec.11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. In view of above, we are unable to hold that the questions proposed by the Revenue are substantial questions of law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
