TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar then no disallowance on this account should be made. Deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 available to a charitable Trust - Held that:- CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04 [2011 (2) TMI 1505 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation and does not amount to double deduction - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 2019/MUM/2011 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2015 - Rajendra (Accountant Member) And I. P. Bansal (Judicial Member) For the Appellant : Jeetendra Kumar For the Respondent : Jeetendra Kumar ORDER I. P. Bansal (Judicial Member) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue and it is directed against order passed by Ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed and allowing of set off of deficit of earlier year against income of current year will result in double deduction which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd., v/s UOI 199 ITR 43 and J.K. Synthetics v/s Union of India (1992) 65 TAXMAN 420. 2. Apropos Ground No.1, it was observed by the AO that the assessee had debited an amount of ₹ 49,16,762/- on account of provision of gratuity. The assessee was required to explain the same. While disallowing the said amount it has been observed by AO that assessee in the present case has merely made an entry in its account of expenditure which is of contingent in nature. The disallowance made by the AO was contested in the appeal file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than to restore this issue to the file of AO to verify such contention of the assessee and if it is found that the impugned amount is based upon the actuarial valuation report and it is paid in subsequent year then no disallowance on this account should be made. 4. Apropos Ground No.2 3, it was submitted that these issues are covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of assessee itself in respect of A.Y 2003-04, copy of this order is also filed in the paper book at pages 24 to 26, wherein their Lordships have observed that both the issues are covered by the earlier decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, 264 ITR 110 (Bom). For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... closure of the material facts as far as both the above issue is concerned. Their Lordships have observed that the issues raised by the Revenue in reassessment proceedings were covered against the Revenue by the aforementioned decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Baking Personnel Section (supra). Those observations of their Lordships are reproduced below: 5. Moreover, counsel on both sides agree that even on merits the question is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking reported in (2003) 264 ITR 110. In this view of the matter, the notice dated 24/03/2010 is quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof the reassessment order passed on 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... religious purposes. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not allow carry forward of the excess of expenditure to be set off against the surplus of the subsequent years on the ground that in the case of a Charitable Trust, their income was assessable under self-contained code mentioned in section 11 to section 13 of the Incometax Act and that the income of the Charitable Trust was not assessable under the head profits and gains of business under section 28 in which the provision for carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years to be adjusted against income of subsequent years. We do not find any merit in this ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
