9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT (Appeals) on 20.09.2011 in relation to the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Following two grounds have been raised in this appeal : - 1. "That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the disallowance of brought forward and set off loss holding the same to be a case of double deduction, although, the assessee has not claimed depreciation at all. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income. The AO rejected the assessee's contention by noting that its income was exempt u/s 11 and the only criterion was of 85% application of income by charitable institutions/trust. If there was excess expenditure, the same could not be carried forward. The AO opined that if the view point of the assessee was accepted, it would result in granting double benefit, one being the exempt income and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter of carry forward. 5. The ld. DR submitted that the view taken by the ld. CIT (A) be accepted in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. India National Theatre Trust (2008) 305 ITR 149 (Del) and the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 344 (Kerala). We are not convinced with the submissions advanced on behal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our notice and there is a decision by the tribunal for the earlier year, which in turn is also based on certain judgments, we are unable to accept the contention of the ld. DR to deviate from the view taken by the tribunal in assessee's own case. Further, no material has been placed on record to show that the said order of the tribunal has been reversed or modified in any manner by the Hon'ble Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
