TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 786X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim of depreciation on fixed assets utilized for the charitable purposes has to be allowed while arriving at the income available for application to charitable and religious purposes, since the income of the society should be computed on the basis of commercial principles. Claim to depreciation for determination percentage of funds to be applied for purposes of trust is permissible – Not a case of double benefit - in favour of assessee. No provision for set off losses u/s. 11, 12 & 13 - Held that:- As decided in D.I.T. vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust [2010 (7) TMI 158 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the adjustment of the expenses incurred by the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the earlier year against the income earned by the trust in the subsequent year would amount to applying the income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust u/s 11(1)(a) - in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 4081/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 19-10-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, JJ. Assessee by : Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA Department by : S mt. Sushm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not brought any substantial or incriminating cause against the assessee society which supported him in his action to consider the fee received from satellite schools liable to be taxed in the hands of assessee society. 17. Per contra, from a plain reading of impugned order in this regard, we observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly followed the judgment of ITAT and the first appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) passed in assessee s own case in this regard had rightly considered that the amount of fees received from satellite schools was not liable to tax for the year under consideration. Hence, he rightly deleted the addition. Accordingly, we are unable to see any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. Therefore, we have no reason to interfere with the same. On the basis of foregoing discussions, we arrive to a conclusion that ground no. 1 is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and we dismiss the same. 6. In view of the aforesaid decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Secondly, before the Hon ble Supreme Court, there was an issue of claiming deduction of the cost of asset u/s 35(1) of the Act which allowed deduction for capital expenditure incurred on scientific research. 23. Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi and Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court have held that the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. is inapplicable to the cases of charitable trust wherein the issue of computation of its income should be on commercial principle in order to determine the amount of income available for application to serve the charitable purposes of the society/trust. 24. In view of above, we hold that the Assessing Officer ignored the fact that the assessee s claim of depreciation was allowed in the earlier assessment years and there was no substantial cause for deviating from its stand of the revenue, therefore, we decline to approve the assessment order in this regard. 25. On the other hand, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly held that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case relate to a charitable institution and this is distinguishable from the judgment of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue, there seems to be a consensus of judicial thinking; Having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion, we are not inclined to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law. There does not appear to be any contrary view plausible on the question raised before us and at any rate no judgement taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice. 11. In view of the above mentioned decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case as well as the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), hence, we uphold the same on this issue. In the result, this ground raised by the revenue stands dismissed. 12. The last ground raised by the revenue is that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in allowing the deficit of earlier assessment, as there is no provision for set off losses u/s. 11, 12 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 13. On this issue Assessing Officer noted that an amount of ₹ 53,43,18,044/- has been claimed as set off of excess of expenditure of earlier assessment y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
