TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in vide order dated 28.12.2010. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds in the appeal: 1. The order of the CIT(A) is opposed to law on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT{A) erred in allowing the depreciation as claimed by the assessee by relying the following decisions: i) Punjab Haryana High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Market committee Pipli(330 ITR 16) ii) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Society of the Sister of St. Anne (146 ITR 28) iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Manav Mangal Society (328 ITR (st) 9). 3. The CIT(A) ought to have seen that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Manav Mangal Society (328 ITR (s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act of the Parliament. On 28.09.2008, it had e-filed its return and declared income of `.92,84,66,016/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act . In scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act on 14.09.2009. In the meantime, the assessee succeeded in getting registration under section 12AA of the Act with retrospective effect from CIT-I Madurai vide order dated 30.03.2010. Accordingly, it also filed its revised statement admitting total income of `.10,36,85,743/- in view of section 11 of the Act along with audited report under section 10B of the Act . 5. After perusing assessee s revised statement of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that depreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T vs. Manav Mangal Society(328 ITR (St) 9). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the assessee trust was granted registration under section 12AA of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide its order dated 30.03.2010 in C.No. 464/02/2007-08/CIT-I with effect from 01.04.2002. The effect of this order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was given to the assessee by the DCIT Circle I, Tuticorin vide its order dated 31.03.2010. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by this order filed appeals for the all the assessment years before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and claimed that the Assessing Officer was not justified in not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SLP against the said decision was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court by passing a speaking order, which is reported at 328 ITR (St.) 9. 9. We do not find any force in the appeals of the Revenue. The contention of the Revenue that the proceedings in the instant case are arising out of an order passed under section 154 of the Act and allowability of depreciation being a debatable issue, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in deciding the same on merits then on the very same analogy it has to be held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the depreciation in such a proceedings. Be that as it may. We find that the issue of allowability of depreciation in the case of charitable institution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
