TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 26-3-2018 - Ms. Sushma Chowla, JM And Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT Respondent by : Shri Pramod Shingte ORDER Per Sushma Chowla, JM Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are against separate orders of CIT(A), Aurangabad, dated 10.06.2014 and 30.06.2014 relating to assessment years 2010-11 2011-12 against respective orders passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. Both the appeals filed by Revenue relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. In order to adjudicate the issue, we make reference to the facts in ITA No.1633/PUN/2014, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of depreciation on capital assets at ₹ 15,42,83,198/- in assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer also noted that the cost of assets had already been allowed as application of income under section 11 of the Act and hence, WDV was nil and as such, there was no amount on which depreciation could be claimed and in any case, allowance of depreciation would amount to double deduction. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC). The assessee in reply, explained that the depreciation on assets of Trust was to be deducted while computing income of Trust. In this regard, reliance was placed on the ratio laid d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 of the Act, even though cost of the asset had been allowed as application of income in the preceding year. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 9. The issue of claim of depreciation on assets cost of which has been allowed as application of income in the preceding year, has been decided by the Hon ble Apex Court in CIT Vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (supra). The Hon ble Apex Court held that the issue has been decided by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) (2003) 131 Taxman 386 (Bom). The contention of Department of double benefit was turned down in the said decision and the relevant finding of the Hon ble High Court has been reproduced, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
