TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two deductions under different provisions of the Act, one u/s. 32 for depreciation and the other on account of expenditure of a capital nature incurred on scientific research u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The Hon’ble Court thereafter held that a trust claiming depreciation cannot be equated with a claim for double deduction. Also see CIT v. Society of Sisters of Anne (1983 (8) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA High Court)- Decided against revenue. Entitlement to trust to carry forward expenditure incurred in excess of its income for setting off against income of the succeeding years - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- So long as the expenditure incurred is on religious or charitable purposes, it is the expenditure properly incurred by the trust, and the income from out of which that expenditure is incurred, would not be liable to tax. The expenditure, if incurred in an earlier year is adjusted against the income of a later year, it has to be held that the trust had incurred expenditure on religious and charitable purposes from the income of the subsequent year, even though the actual expenditure was in the earlier years, if in the books of account of the trust such earlier expenditure had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the same asset. The AO referred to the decision of the of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of DDIT(E) v. Lissie Medical Institutions, 348 ITR 344 (Ker) wherein it was held that allowing depreciation of a depreciable asset when the cost of acquisition of depreciable asset was allowed as application of income for charitable purpose amounts to double depreciation and therefore depreciation cannot be allowed. The AO also distinguished the cases cited by the Assessee. 5. On appeal by the Assessee, the CIT(A), following the decisions rendered in the case of St.Ann s Convent 349 ITR 559 (Karn) and Dr.T.M.A. Pal Foundation, Manipal in ITA No. 481 to 485/Bangh/2009 dated 16.2.2010 held that the claim of the Assessee for depreciation has to be allowed. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of the ld. DR, who relied on the order of AO. We have considered the order of the AO. Identical issue came up for consideration before ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of DDIT(E) v. Cutchi Memon Union (2013) 60 SOT 260 Bangalore ITAT , wherein similar issue has been dealt with by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court made a reference to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. (supra) and observed that the Hon ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case of two deductions under different provisions of the Act, one u/s. 32 for depreciation and the other on account of expenditure of a capital nature incurred on scientific research u/s. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The Hon ble Court thereafter held that a trust claiming depreciation cannot be equated with a claim for double deduction. The Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court has also made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Society of Sisters of Anne, 146 ITR 28 (Kar), wherein it was held that u/s. 11(1) of the Act, income has to be computed in normal commercial manner and the amount of depreciation debited in the books is deductible while computing such income. In view of the aforesaid decision on the issue, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on the above issue does not call for any interference. 22. Consequently, ground No.5 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 8. We may also add that the legal position has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The ld. DR reiterated the stand of the Revenue as contained in the grounds of appeal. 14. We have considered his submission. Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated in section 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet the expenses incurred for charitable or religious purposes. Hence, even if the expenses for such purposes have been incurred in the earlier years and the said expenses are adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, the income of such subsequent year can be said to be applied for charitable or religious purposes in the year in which such adjustment takes place. In other words, the set-off of excess of expenditure incurred over the income of earlier years against the income of a later year will amount to application of income of such later year. The above is the position of law as held in the case of CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation 164 ITR 439 (Raj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
