TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s for the impugned assessment year - Held that:- There is no dispute that excess of application claimed by the assessee was the amount which was expended above its income. In other words, assessee only claimed excess application without considering accumulation of 15% allowed to it. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessee was eligible for claiming the carry forward of excess over application of income pertaining to the earlier years. Orders of the lower authorities is set aside. AO is directed to give set off claimed by the assessee. Grounds of the assessee stand allowed. Gratuity paid to its employees not allowed as application of income - Claim of the assessee before us is that gratuity payment was actually paid duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act ). As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee was denied depreciation for a reason that cost of the assets on which such depreciation was claimed was allowed as application of income. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, by virtue of judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona, (2018) 89 Taxmann. com 127, where an assessee is a charitable institution registered u/s. 12A of the Act even though expenditure claimed for acquisition of capital assets was treated as application of income, depreciation would be allowable on such assets. 4. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative fairly agreed that question raised was covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11, 97, 05, 670 15, 26, 33, 163 1, 18, 02, 963 2007-08 16, 00, 04, 266 13, 60, 03, 626 16, 24, 47, 030 24, 42, 764 2008-09 11, 89, 46, 495 10, 11, 04, 521 12, 05, 72, 697 16, 26, 202 2009-10 12, 94, 29, 585 11, 00, 15, 147 13, 04, 44, 331 10, 14, 746 Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee was eligible for claiming carry forward of such excess by virtue of the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of the present assessment year. When similar questions came up before the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT v. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation [1987] 164 ITR 439 and CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal [1995] 211 ITR 239 , respectively, both the Rajasthan High Court and the Gujarat High Court have answered the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Rajasthan and the Gujarat High Courts, we answer the second question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the revenue . There is no dispute that excess of application claimed by the assessee was the amount which was expended above its income. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Gratuity Fund Contribution : ₹ 10, 67, 703/- (iii) Gratuity payment to employees : ₹ 13, 99, 817/- Total : ₹ 44, 30, 254/- Claim of the assessee before us is that gratuity payment of ₹ 13, 99, 817/- comprised in the above list was actually paid during the relevant previous year, but the ld. Assessing Officer and ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took a view that there was no actual cash outflow. Now before us, assessee has filed a list showing names of the persons to whom gratuity payments were claimed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
