TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition has already been claimed as application of income? 2. At the outset, both the parties agreed that the issue is covered against the Revenue by the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 939/Hyd/2015 dt. 14-10-2015. 2.1. Ld. DR however, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lissie Medical Institutions Vs. CIT [348 ITR 344 (Kerala)] to support the Revenue s contentions. 3. Having considered the rival contentions, we see no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of depreciation. The Co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case for the AY. 2010-11 in ITA No. 939/Hyd/2015 dt. 14-10-2015 has considered the issue in detail and held as under: 2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. Learned representatives of both the sides have agreed that the issue involved in this appeal of the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of AP Olympic Association, Hyderabad for assessment year 2008-09 rendered vide order dated 7 February, 2014 in ITA No.1272/Hyd/2013. A copy of the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Sri Venkata Sai Educational Society (supra), however, did not decide the issue but restored the matter to the file of the A.O. to examine; whether assets have been claimed as exemption in earlier years on which depreciation was claimed. However, in a later order by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ADIT (Exemption)-I vs. Royal Educational Society in ITA.No. 1378/Hyd/2011 dated 28.06.2012 however, allowed the claim of depreciation and dismissed the Revenue s appeal. The Coordinate Bench relied on the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manav Mangal Society 328 ITR 421 (P H) (HC) and CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16, in arriving at that decision. Thus, there was a difference of opinion on the above issue at that point of time. 10. The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manav Mangal Society 328 ITR 421 (P H) (HC) has considered and allowed the claim of depreciation. The amount spent on construction of School Building at Panchkula is a capital expenditure but for the purpose of section 11 it is an outgoing expenditure which is application of income of the appellant trus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment in which the Board has taken the view that the income of the trust should be understood in its commercial sense. The circular is as under:- Where the trust derives income from house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection, that the amounts so added back will become chargeable to tax u/s. 11(3) to the extent that they represent outgoings for purposes other than those of the trust. The amounts spent or applied for the purposes of the trust from out of the income computed in the aforesaid manner, should be not less than 75 per cent. Of the latter, if the trust is to get the full benefit of the exemption u/s. 11(1). 12. A similar view was earlier expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Nizam's Suppl. Religious Endowment Trust (1981) 127 ITR 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded unless clearly expressed. The present case is not one of this type, as rightly distinguished by the CIT(Appeals). 14. Having regard to the consensus of judicial opinion on the precise question that has arisen in the present appeal, 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 judgment taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice. In the circumstances, we decline to admit the present appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs . 13. Similar view was also taken by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of ACIT vs. Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust (2013) 31 taxmann.com 157 (Bangalore Trib.) wherein it was held that Charitable or Religious trust registered under section 12A can claim benefit under section 11 in the form of application of funds as well as depreciation under section 32 in respect of property held under the trust. The same opinion was followed by the ITAT, Bangalore Tribunal in the case of DDIT(E), Bangalore vs. Cutchi Memon Union (2013) 38 Taxman.com 276 (Bangalore-Trib.) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
