TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of convenience. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case extracted from ITA No. 6640/Mum/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 are that the assessee trust is an association setup by Government of India, Ministry of Textiles. The main objects of the assessee are to establish, promote and operate, maintain and increase the export of Synthetic Rayon Textiles as well as undertaking market studies in foreign markets, sending out trade delegations to foreign countries etc. The assessee was granted exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) vide Certificate issued u/s 12A of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. noted that the major source of income is by way of subscription amounting to ₹ 1,48,08,000/-. This entire amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further noted that the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and filed an appeal in Bombay High Court against the admissibility of interest free and export expenses outside India. The A.O. further observed that the assessee has claimed depreciation of ₹ 10,84,582/- and applied as application of income u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. According to the A.O. it amounts to double deduction in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. Union of India (1993)199 ITR 43 (SC) and J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) 65 Taxman 420 (SC) and accordingly he disallowed the claim of ₹ 10,84,582/-. 3. On appeal the ld. CIT(A) on the issue of denial of exemption on the ground of mutuality and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable on record. We find merit in the plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue raised by the Revenue in ground No. 1 is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case (supra) wherein the Tribunal vide para 3 of its order dtd. 5-5-2003 (supra) has held that entrance fee is a capital receipt and not assessable as income for the purpose of section 11 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the appeal for the A.Y. 1997-98 (supra). In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal, decline to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this account. The ground taken by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Market Committee, Pipli (2011) 330 ITR 16 (P H) after distinguishing the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) while relying on various decisions including the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Institute of Banking (supra) has held vide penultimate para 10 as under:- In the present case, the assessee is not claiming double deduction on account of depreciation as has been suggested by learned counsel for the Revenue. The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee is only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
