2014 (8) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... untant Member).- The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated January 24, 2014, of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Panchkula. 2. The grounds raised in this appeal by the Revenue are as under :              1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... isallowed because the assessee had also claimed the cost of acquisition of assets towards application of money. However, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim by following the decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli [2011] 330 ITR 16 (P&H). 4. Before us the learned Departmental representative strongly sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... purposes of the trust. There was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. It could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11." 7. Following the above order we decide this issue against the Revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on this August 19, 2014.< .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X