TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue are dismissed being devoid of any merits. Appeal dismissed. - I.T.A. Nos. 1086 and 1087/Mds/2010 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2011 - SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE A.M. For the Respondent : Shri K.E.B. Rangarajan, Jr. Standing Counsel For the Petitioner : Shri S. Sridhar ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. These two appeals of the Revenue are directed against separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) I, Coimbatore both dated 28.04.2010 for the assessment years 2005- 06 and 06-07 respectively, whereby through common grounds, the action of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 and to allow depreciation of assets as application of funds when the ld. CIT(A) ought to have observed that the assessee had already included the cost of the assets as application of funds and allowing depreciation on the assessee would amount to double taxation as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts India Ltd. vs. Union of India 199 ITR 43 has been challenged. 2. These appeals involve identical facts and common issues, therefore, being heard together and disposed of by this single or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng educational trust and registered u/s. 12A(a) of the 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) Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal expenditure had been allowed in the year 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of deciding the appeals and 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 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
