TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of utilization. Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the capital expenditure itself having been claimed earlier as application of income, further claim of depreciation on assets acquired out of such capital expenditure, could not be again considered as application. As per the A.O., this will result in claiming of double deduction. Relying on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (199 ITR 43), he disallowed the claim of depreciation. 3. Appeal of the assessee before ld. CIT(Appeals) did not meet with any success, though the assessee relied on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (264 ITR 110) and that of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Market Committee, Pipili (330 ITR 16). According to ld. CIT(Appeals), Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (135 ITR 485) had held that income for the purpose of applying provisions of Section 11 of the Act had to be understood in the normal parlance without invoking Section 14 of the Act. As per ld. CIT(Appeals), Hon ble jurisdictional High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The gross receipts, amounts of depreciation claimed and reasons for disallowance for respective years are given as under: (a) The return of income filed for (i) Assessment Year 2004-05 declares NIL income and gross receipts of Rs. .18,95,45,440/- in which the claim of depreciation made at Rs. .2,72,85,356/- which was completed as No Demand while disallowing the depreciation claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has stated that when the assessee had claimed the cost of addition to assets as application of funds, claim of depreciation on the same assets could not be allowed. (b) The return of income filed for (i) Assessment Year 2005-06 declares NIL income and gross receipts of Rs. . 22,17,53,309/- in which the claim of depreciation made at Rs. .2,82,17,782/- which was completed as No Demand while disallowing the depreciation claim of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has stated that when the assessee had claimed the cost of addition to assets as application of funds, claim of depreciation on the same assets could not be allowed. (c) The return of income filed for (i) Assessment Year 2006-07 declares NIL income and gros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear of acquisition of the assets. The assessee went in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was rejected. The Tribunal, however, took the view that when the ITO stated that full expenditure had been allowed in the year of acquisition of the assets, what he really meant was that the amount spent on acquiring those assets had been treated as application of income of the trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. This did not mean that in computing income from those assets in subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets can not be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgement i.e. Director of Income-tax(Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. Hence, this issue was covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the above judgement. Consequently, this issue was answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Department. 10. The ratio of the above mentioned decision reported in 264 ITR 110 (2003) in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking, wherein the Bombay High Court has held that the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... now also Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Tiny Tots Education Society as reported in 2010-TIOL-550-High Court-P H-IT vide order dt.28th July, 2010, under similar facts, has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee and while enclosing the copy of the judgement of Hon ble Bombay High Court as well as Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly pleaded that since the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, not by one High Court but by second High Court also in which Supreme Court decision s case of Escort Ltd. Vs. UOI and others has been discussed, has concluded to hold the question proposed in favour of the assessee, therefore being covered the matter, order of the CIT(A) for all the years are liable to be upheld. It was thus urged for upholding the impugned orders and for dismissing all the appeals of the Revenue. 10. After hearing both the sides, considering the material as well as case laws cited by the rival side, we find that in the recent judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Tiny Tots Education Society (supra) has concluded to decide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
